Appeal No. 1999-1454 Page 15
Application No. 08/596,343
Appellants further assert (reply brief, pages 1 and 2) that
element 1b of Hosen does not meet the limitations of claim 2
with respect to the protection plate because 1b does not have
a CPU thereon. Appellants further assert (id.) that element
1c of Hosen does not have pillars called for in claim 2.
The examiner takes the position (answer, page 4) that
either insulating layer 1b or upper conductive layer 1c may be
considered a protection plate. We disagree. We find that in
Hosen (page 1), element 1a is a heat sink made of aluminum.
Element 1b of Hosen is an insulating layer formed of epoxy
resin. Element 1c is a copper foil conductive pattern. From
these teachings of Hosen, we find that the epoxy resin
insulating layer does not constitute a plate. Additionally,
we find that although the power chip 2 of Hosen is provided on
the surface of conductive layer 1c, as are terminals (pillars)
7, we find that copper foil conductive patterns 1c cannot
reasonable be construed as a protective plate. We therefore
conclude that neither epoxy resin insulating layer 1b nor
copper foil conductive pattern 1c meet the claimed protective
plate, as advanced by the examiner.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007