Appeal No. 1998-2538
Application 08/434,336
record showing that appellants’ claimed mold compound insert is
conventional.
Furthermore, appellants’ claim 1 requires the step of
placing a mold compound insert in a mold compound receptacle
wherein the 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.
Hence, this aspect of the claim must be taught or suggested by
the applied art. In this context, we observe that the examiner
has not shown that the combination of Kubota in view of Saeki
teaches a mold compound insert comprising a mold compound
packaged in a sproutless packaging, comprising a thermoset resin
packaged in a sproutless plastic film that is heat sealed at the
edges. The examiner recognizes that Kubota, with respect to
Figures 10a-10h, places resin in a rubber tube. Hence, the
examiner recognizes that Kubota uses rubber material for the
packaging. (answer, page 5).
We also observe that Kubota recommends a dust proof paper 23
as the covering membrane (column 4, lines 10-15), or an aluminum
foil (column 4, lines 38-43). Also, at column 3, lines 14-16,
Kubota indicates that membrane 3 can consist of flexible
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007