Appeal No. 1998-2538
Application 08/434,336
material, such as heat proof silicon rubber. Saeki does not
utilize a packaged insert. Hence, we cannot find, and the
examiner has not shown, that the prior art teaches or suggests
the use of a sproutless plastic film for packaging a mold
compound.
Therefore, we determine that a requirement of claim 1 is not
suggested by the applied art according to the examiner’s
rejection, and according to our observations of the applied
references, as discussed above.
Furthermore, we note that obviousness can be established by
combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce
the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to do so found either in the references or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). Here, the examiner's rejection lacks the proper
motivation regarding why one skilled in the art would have
combined the teachings of Kubota in view of Saeki, when Kubota is
directed to utilizing a resin tablet for plastic encapsulation,
whereas Saeki is directed to utilizing an unpackaged resin.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007