Appeal No. 1998-0296
Application 08/431,312
provide the claimed difference in thicknesses, is not a viable
basis to find the plastic body so formed to be obvious over
Ina.
We therefore do not sustain the rejections of claims 21,
24, 25, 27 or 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ina.
We will, however, sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ina. Figure 2
of Ina depicts a plastic body (3) enclosing a semiconductor
(2) and a leadframe (4) so as to leave the terminal leads
outside the plastic body. The plastic body clearly has a top
surface with a concave shape, and a bottom surface which is
substantially flat, such that the plastic body has a maximum
thickness near the edges and a minimum thickness in a central
portion of the body.
Appellants' sole argument in regard to this rejection of8
this claim is that Ina contains no description of a difference
between a maximum and minimum thickness being equal to twice
an expected deformation. We find that claim 26 does not
8Brief, pages 10 and 11, sections 2 and 3
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007