Appeal No. 1997-3932
Application 08/435,237
base component 142; and, 160 is the leadframe, not the
sealing glass. Thus, the Examiner's response does not make
sense.
Nevertheless, we have considered both references and
agree with Appellants' arguments. Kovacs is the closer of
the two references to the claimed subject matter, but it
clearly shows the leads 16 extending beyond the periphery of
the base 6 and not rigidly adhering to the base. The
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claim 2, and its dependent
claims 3-7 and 18, is reversed.
Claims 8-10
Claims 8-10 stand together. Claims 9 and 10 stand or
fall together in case the rejection of claim 8 is not
reversed.
The embodiment of claim 8 corresponds to figure 12.
Appellants argue that claim 8 is not anticipated
because Kaiser does not teach "a base component that is at
least partially coated with an in situ dielectric layer"
(Br12). Kaiser discloses a copper base coated with gold
(col. 3, lines 78).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007