Appeal No. 1998-2538
Application 08/434,336
Saeki et al. (Saeki) 4,900,501 Feb. 13, 1990
Kubota et al. (Kubota) 5,043,199 Aug. 27, 1991
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Kubota in view of Saeki.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
by the examiner concerning the above-noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by appellants and for the reasons
set forth below, we will reverse the rejection of record.
On pages 6-7 of their brief, appellants indicate that Kubota
does not show, teach or suggest “said mold compound insert
comprises mold compound packaged in a sproutless packaging,
comprising a thermoset resin packaged in a sproutless plastic
film that is heat sealed at the edges.”
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that "[t]he
instant claimed mold compound packaged in a sproutless plastic
film that is heat sealed at the edges is a mere conventional
package that does not manipulatively differentiate the instant
claimed process of encapsulating integrated circuit leadframes.”
However, the examiner does not point to any evidence in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007