Appeal No. 2000-2100
Application No. 09/101,371
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 10 and 12) and
the answer (paper number 11) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the indefiniteness and the obviousness rejections
of claims 1 and 2.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection, the
examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 3) that “[t]he limitation
of ‘symmetrically shaped bond wires’ is confusing.” According to
the examiner (answer, pages 5 and 6), the term “symmetrical” is
indefinite because “it encompasses a variety of features,” it
“could be applied to a multitude of shapes,” and “it is well known
in the art that almost any bond wire is symmetrically shaped.” In
response, appellants argue (brief, page 11) that:
[L]ines 19-23 on page 2 of the present application teach
that the bond wires are symmetrical both in positioning
and in the shape or construction of wires themselves.
Particularly in evidence of the latter symmetricalness of
the bond wires, lines 21-23 of page 2 teach that the
lengths of the bond wires are the same (i.e.,
correspondence of shape for the bond wires on both sides
of the conductor frame, hence symmetricalness) as opposed
to bond wires of the asymmetrical connection known in the
prior art. Furthermore, Figures 3 and 4 clearly
illustrate this symmetry. Hence, the construction or the
“shape” of the bond wires are taught to be symmetrical
(i.e., the same). Taken in light of this teaching in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007