Appeal No. 1998-0316
Application No. 08/355,646
100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685,
1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The rejection of claim 13 will therefore be sustained.
Claim 14 reads:
The method according to claim 11 including
projecting the eject pin into the mold cavity a
distance corresponding to shrinkage of the plastic
during molding.
We will not sustain the rejection of this claim, since we find
no teaching or suggestion thereof in Ohasi. The plunger 8 of
Ohasi is disclosed as being projected into the cavity in order
to insure complete filling of the mold by the plastic, rather
than to compensate for shrinkage, and the distance of
projection is defined not by potential shrinkage but by the
plunger reaching a position flush with the inner surface of
mold 6.
Rejection (2)
Turning first to claim 16, the examiner takes the
position that, in effect, it would have been obvious to use
the method of Ohasi to mold an article containing a lead frame
supporting a semiconductor device, the molding of such
articles being disclosed by Osada. Appellant contends to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007