Appeal No. 1997-3932
Application 08/435,237
Appellants argue that neither Butt nor Kovacs teaches
or suggests that the external portion of the leadframe both:
(1) extends beyond the second perimeter (perimeter of the
cover) and terminates adjacent to the first perimeter (base
perimeter); and (2) rigidly adheres to the base (Br10). The
advantage of this claimed construction is that the
electronic package is edge connectable and there is
virtually no possibility of external lead damage, bending,
or distortion (Br9). Appellants find that the external
portion of the leadframe in both references extend beyond
the perimeter of the base component, is free standing, and
is not rigidly adhered to the base component (Br10).
The Examiner responds to these arguments as follows
(EA5):
Butt is for example Figure 1 teaches cover 156 having a
second perimeter less than a first perimeter of base
154. Leadframe 158 is shown extending beyond the
second perimeter of cap 156 and terminates adjacent to
the first perimeters of base 154, sealing glass 160
rigidly adheres leads 158 to base 154.
This description does not correspond to Butt. The
references numeral are found in figure 7 of Butt, not
figure 1. Furthermore, 154 is a flanged cup, not a base;
base 156 is the base of a flanged radiation cup 154, not the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007