Appeal No. 1998-0372
Application No. 08/533,585
would have led the artisan to the claimed subject matter. Appellants have elected not to
respond to the examiner’s additional findings with respect to the subject matter of Claim
27. Since the examiner sets out a reasonable prima facie case for unpatentability which
stands unrebutted, we sustain the rejection of Claim 27.4
Appellants submit arguments for independent Claim 28 on page 12 of the Brief.
Some of the arguments are clearly not commensurate with the claim -- such as the tie bar
support portions 3a allegedly being “in a different plane than heat sink 3,” and leads
allegedly failing to “overlap” the first main surface of the heat sink. The remainder of the
arguments in defense of Claim 28, at best, point to alleged deficiencies in individual
embodiments disclosed by Asada.
Since appellants have not shown the rejection of any of Claims 26 through 28 to be
in error, we sustain the rejection of those claims.
Claims 21, 23-25
We reach the opposite result with respect to the rejection of Claims 21 and 23
through 25. As appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, independent Claim 21
requires, inter alia, that “each coupling enclosing an end of said support lead not
connected to said lead frame and at least a portion of one of said extensions.”
We note that the Claim 27 recitation “said first main surface of said insulating layer” lacks proper4
antecedent in the claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007