Appeal No. 1999-2570
Application No. 08/923,218
said enlarged space allowing said plastic having said filler material therein
having said particle size distribution and said average particle size
diameter within the particle size distribution to flow therethrough without said
filler material therein substantially damaging said portion of said active
surface of said semiconductor die during said encapsulation process of
encapsulating said semiconductor device in said plastic having said filler
material therein.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Burns 4,209,355 Jun. 24, 1980
Murakami et al. (Murakami) 5,068,712 Nov. 26, 1991
Claims 1,3,4,6-10, 31-34, and 36-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murakami in view of Burns.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Jan. 6, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 21, filed Nov. 12, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 23, filed Mar. 3, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007