Appeal No. 1998-0296
Application 08/431,312
in the claims. In particular, Appellants argue that Kitamura
does not show or suggest the claimed step of "wherein the
difference between said maximum and minimum thickness is twice
a maximum expected deformation of the package" (see claim 21,
lines 14-15). Appellants also assert that this limitation is
not a product-by-process limitation, but a physical limitation
on the structure of the claimed device , and defines the 5
difference between the two thicknesses. In addition,
Appellants assert that deformation is a physical measurable
characteristic of the device and expected deformation is a
predictive physical quantity.
Appellants further argue that claim 21 is directed to a
physical structure for a plastic package before the curing
process, not to a final, cured package, and thus the process
which the Examiner contends renders the claim a product-by-
process claim has not yet been performed.
In addition, Appellants assert that the Examiner has not6
5Brief, page 8.
6Response To New Grounds Of Rejection, page 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007