Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
OPINION
At the outset, we note that claim 11 is neither part of the examiner’s statement of
rejection nor is it discussed in the explanation of the rejection. Similarly, appellants do not
mention or discuss claim 11 in the briefs, regarding the rejection thereof. The final
rejection only mentions claim 11 in regard to including it under rejection based on 35
U.S.C. § 112, a rejection apparently withdrawn in the answer. However, since claims 12
and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and these claims depend from claim 11, we
presume that claim 11 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same
references applied against claims 10, 12 and 13.
With regard to independent claims 8 and 14, it is the examiner’s position that
Ishizaki teaches a semiconductor chip 32 encapsulated in a housing 38 having a surface
(the surface is identified as the edge portion at 38a formed by the line intersection of the
two intersecting inclined base planes) facing the circuit board 39, “all of which is flat, all of
which is parallel to , and all of which is in contact with the printed circuit board so as to form
a planar component mounting surface” [answer-page 2]. The examiner also identifies a
first planar lead frame part 25 and a second planar lead frame part 26 “forming solder 41
terminals 35, 37 along side the housing” [answer-page 3]. The examiner further states that
Ishizaki discloses that the solder terminals are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007