Appeal No. 1997-3152 Page 13
Application No. 08/116,305
the inner lead (12) and the linking mechanism (18)
is severed, and the interface between the indicating
mechanism (20) and the stage (14) is also severed.
After the linking mechanism (18) has been detached,
the shape of the front end of the inner lead (12) is
optimized.
From these teachings of Atobe, we find that Atobe does not
disclose an interposer ring as defined in claim 1.
The appellants further assert (brief, page 12) that "the
limitation '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’ is neither taught by
Nakayama
nor Chu." With regard to the claimed “severable tie bars,” we
find (translation, page 2) that the support bars 16 of stage
14 of Atobe constitute tie bars. However, we are in agreement
with the appellants (brief, page 12) that
because Atobe does not have an interposer ring,
Atobe provides no teaching or suggestion to form in
Nakayama, using Chu's interposer ring, a [sic: an]
integrally formed interposer ring with a lead frame,
and attaching such an interposer ring to the lead
frame by a plurality of severable tie bars in the
manner the Examiner asserts it obvious to do.
From all of the above, we conclude that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007