Appeal No. 1999-1651
Application No. 08/775,308
re-disclose duplicative subject matter. Here, the prior packaging disclosure discusses
encapsulating the circuitry (specification at page 45) then Fig. 23 shows an
encapsulated packaging with upper package OP10 without the use of the terminology
“encapsulation.” In our view, the upper package would similarly encapsulate/seal the
circuitry since foreign matter therein would seriously degrade operation.
Finally, the examiner suggests the rewriting of the packaging sections of the
specification in “a more clear and cogent fashion.” (See answer at pages 3-4.) While
this may be quite useful, we find that, as originally filed, the disclosure is sufficient to
meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and we will not
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Similarly with respect to the showing for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1032, we
find that the examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically,
appellants argue that the language of claim 41 requires that the “power device, the
control element and the one end of the first and second terminals be arranged on the
upper surface of said support member.” (See brief at page 17.) Appellants direct
2 We agree with appellants that the examiner’s rejection of claims 19-23, which were canceled in
actuality was directed to pending claims 41-45.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007