Appeal No. 1997-3932
Application 08/435,237
Claims 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20
The embodiment of claim 11 corresponds to figure 13.
Appellants argue (Br15) that the circuit trace 72 of
Kaiser: (1) does not extend to the perimeter of the package
base; and (2) assuming that gold strip 110 is considered an
extended portion of the same circuit trace extending up to
the first perimeter, it does not meet the limitation for
"traces directly adhered to said dielectric layer over the
entire length of the circuit traces." Appellants also argue
(Br16) that the dielectric layer 75 in Kaiser is not:
(3) formed in situ; and (4) formed by an anodic process.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art "to form said traces unilateral
[sic, unitary?] and thereby extending beyond a perimeter for
such [w]as well known in this art" (EA4).
While we would take official notice that it was known
to extend a leadframe between a base and a cover (e.g., this
is taught in Butt), we will not take official notice that it
was well known to extend traces directly adhered to the
dielectric layer to the perimeter because we do not know
this to be a fact. What was known in the art must be
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007