Appeal No. 1999-0878
Application 08/182,093
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Lee et al. (Lee) 4,667,219 May 19, 1987
Claims 14-16, 19-25, and 27-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 23)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the reply brief (Paper
No. 26) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially, we agree with Appellants that the grounds of
rejection contain several inconsistencies in reading the
claims onto the elements of Lee. In the final rejection
(FR2), the Examiner referred to both elements 80 and 18 in Lee
as the insulating material, and found element 16 to be the
chip. In the examiner's answer (EA3), the Examiner found
element 80 to be the insulating material and referred to both
elements 16 and 18 as the chip. As noted by Appellants (Br4;
RBr2), element 18 is a semiconductor chip (col. 3, line 49),
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007