Appeal No. 1997-3152 Page 8
Application No. 08/116,305
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14,
15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of
Nakayama considered with Chu and Atobe. Turning first to
claim 1, the claim language at issue is as follows:
said lead frame being formed integrally with a
downset interposer ring which is attached to said
lead frame by a plurality [of] severable tie bars
The examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 3) that
Nakayama “does not disclose an interposer ring having sections
and supported by tie bars.” To overcome these deficiencies in
Nakayama, the examiner turns to Chu and Atobe. The examiner
takes the position (id.) that Chu discloses a one-piece
interposer ring 40 downset towards die 10, and conecludes that
it would have been obvious to have used an interposer ring in
Nakayama to provide electrical contact to the heat sink.
Additionally, the examiner states (id.) that Atobe teaches an
interposer ring 24 having isolated sections 18 with tie bar
supports 16, and that "it would have been obvious . . . to
have a severed interposer ring in Nakayama . . . to prevent
stress and deformation as taught by Atobe."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007