Appeal No. 1998-0316
Application No. 08/355,646
contrary, stating that since distributors such as molded by
Ohasi operate at high voltages while semiconductor devices do
not, the problem addressed by Ohasi, i.e., avoidance of voids
to prevent dielectric breakdown, would be inapplicable to
semiconductor devices, and therefore it would not have been
obvious to use the Ohasi method to mold (encapsulate) such
devices.
We consider the rejection to be well taken. Like Ohasi,
Osada is also concerned with the problem of avoiding voids in
the molded product; see col. 3, lines 6 to 9, and col. 7,
lines 9 to 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious, in view
of Osada, to apply the Ohasi method to the encapsulation of
semiconductor devices, such being suggested by Ohasi's
provision of a method for preventing voids, and Osada's
disclosure of the encapsulation of such devices in resin and
the desirability of preventing voids when doing so.
On page 4 of the brief, appellant states that claim 25
stands or falls with claims 19 and 22, but claim 25 is
dependent on claim 16, and is considered to be unpatentable
for the same reasons as claim 16.
Claims 26 and 27 are also considered unpatentable for the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007