Appeal No. 1998-2897
Application No. 08/749,381
turns to Dubois for a teaching of embedding a chip within a
cavity with polymer resin or epoxy (column 4, lines 7 through
9 and
45 through 49). The examiner concludes (final rejection, page
3) that “[i]t would have been obvious to the skilled artisan
to employ such plastic or epoxy material for encapsulating the
chip 49 in Halstead for the same purpose as in Dubois et al.”
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 4 through 7) that the
so-called chip 49 in Halstead is a field-effect transistor
(FET), that Halstead does not disclose the claimed lead
arrangement, and that it would not have been obvious to
encapsulate the circuit structure in the Halstead antenna.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. Element 49 in
Halstead (Figures 8 through 10) is described as a FET (column
7, lines
18 through 21). Even if we assume for the sake of argument
that the FET in Halstead is a chip, appellant has correctly
argued (Brief, page 4) that the FET is not physically mounted
on an interior mounting surface within the cavity of the
antenna (claims 1 and 14), and that the FET is not in a “back-
surface chip-mounting arrangement in which the chip is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007