Appeal No. 1997-4387
Application 08/308,963
Therefore, the obviousness rejections of these claims are not
sustained. Our reasons follow.
According to the examiner, appellants' specification
lacks descriptive support for the following limitation in
appellants' claim 1:
a convex member fixedly secured to a
lower surface of said movable platen,
having a lower and an upper surface,
wherein one of said lower and upper
surfaces of said convex member is curved;
an upper metallic mold fixedly secured
upon said lower surface of said convex
member to oppose said lower metallic mold,
said lower metallic mold and said upper
metallic mold defining a cavity for
accommodating a semiconductor element
during a resin molding and sealing process.
As originally filed, appellants' specification includes no
information about any connection between upper mold 7 and
movable platen 4. Appellants' drawings in Figure 1 and Figure
2 merely show some polygonal figure between movable platen 4
and mold 7. Appellants have amended the drawings to insert
reference numeral 7a which points to this polygonal figure.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007