Appeal No. 1998-0372
Application No. 08/533,585
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 13) and the Answer (Paper No. 21) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 20) for appellants’
3
position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Claims 26-28
The examiner concludes that the subject matter of Claims 26 through 28 is
rendered obvious by the disclosure of Asada. The conclusion is based in part on the
finding that the reference inherently suggests combining two different disclosed
embodiments. The suggestion is that the embodiment of Figures 1A through 1D be
modified by the teachings of Figures 5A through 5D so as to “allow the bond wires to be
as short as possible, while allowing the heat sink to be as large as possible.” (Final
Rejection, page 4; Answer, page 4.)
Appellants do not address the examiner’s finding. Instead, in defense of Claim 26,
appellants point out deficiencies in the individual embodiments -- the embodiments with
heat sink 3 in Figures 1A through 1D, and heat sink 23 in Figures 5A through 5D -- which
is not responsive to the rejection made. (See Brief, page 11). The rejection is not for
anticipation, but is based on what Asada would have suggested to the artisan.
3We have not considered an earlier brief (Paper No. 18) that was held to lack compliance under 37
CFR § 1.192.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007