Appeal No. 1999-2570
Application No. 08/923,218
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. (See brief at page 6.) Appellants argue that neither reference suggests the
combination of teachings. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants. Appellants
argue that the examiner used impermissible hindsight in an attempt to reconstruct the
claimed invention. (See brief at page 6.) Again, we agree with appellants. Appellants
argue that the prior art references do not recognize the problem of preventing damage to
the surface of the semiconductor by the filler material in the molding resin during the
molding process and providing a stress relief portion in the lead to prevent damage. (See
brief at page 7.) Again, we agree with appellants.
Appellants argue the differences between the shape and size of the filler material at
page 8 of the brief, but we find no such limitation in the language of the independent
claims. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Murakami does not teach or suggest stress reduction to prevent
damage to the active surface of the semiconductor device. (See brief at page 8.) We
agree with appellants. Appellants argue that Murakami does not teach or suggest the use
of a reduced thickness portion of a lead of a lead frame for any purpose. (See brief at
page 9.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the Burns reference does teach
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007