Appeal No. 1998-0372
Application No. 08/533,585
Appellants also, in defense of Claim 26, allege that “the Asada reference teaches a
device having a heat sink 3 with tie bar support portions 3a that are in a different plane
than heat sink 3 (see Fig. 1A).” (Id.) Claim 26 recites “said corners [of the heat spreader]
having extensions extending outward from said heat spreader along the same plane as
said first main surface of said heat spreader....”
Unfortunately, the Answer appears not to address the language of instant Claim 26,
as modified by the amendment filed February 5, 1997, after the Final Rejection, which was
entered upon filing of the instant appeal. The Answer quotes Claim 26 as it stood before
last amended -- “extensions extending outward from said heat spreader along the same
plane as said heat spreader.” (Answer, page 4, emphasis omitted.) However, the
examiner’s interpretation of Claim 26 as it stood before last amended remains apropos,
and the interpretation has not been refuted -- nor even addressed -- by appellants. “[I]t is
readily apparent that the plane of the bottom surface of the extensions is the same plane
as the top surface of the heat spreader.” (Final Rejection, page 4; Answer, page 5.)
Claim 26 as broadly drafted fails to distinguish over the “first main surface” of heat sink 3,
upon which chip 1 is placed, in relation to the bottom surface of tie bar support portion 3a.
The structures share a common plane, as shown in Figure 1A of Asada.
Appellants argue that the limitations of Claim 27 are not taught or suggested by
Asada. However, the examiner identifies a relevant teaching in the reference (see
Answer, page 12), and provides reasoning with regard to how the teachings of Asada
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007