Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
written description in the specification to include any object that is encapsulated by a material
such as a plastic. Thus, in giving the term the broadest reasonable interpretation, it encompasses
at least molded plastic casing 30 on integrated chip 20 on lead frame 10 as seen in specification
prior art Figs. 1 and 2 (specification, page 3, lines 5-17). Such constructs can be referred to as a
“package,” “plastic package” or “encapsulated package” as known in the prior art as
acknowledged by appellant:
Semiconductor integrated circuits (ICs) (or “chips”) are typically housed in an
encasing referred to as a “package.” The package typically includes a “lead frame” that
is electrically connected to the IC within the package, and extends outward to allow
electrical connection of the IC to a circuit board or other product. One of the most
popular package types used in the art is known as the “epoxy molding” or “plastic”
package. With this type of package, the IC and lead frame are enclosed or encapsulated
by a plastic resin material that serves to protect the chip from moisture, contamination,
and other physical or environmental conditions. [Specification, page 1, line 10, to page
2, line 2.
See also specification, e.g., page 2, line 3, to page 4, line 9; page 5, line 18, to page 6, line 2;
page 8, line 13, to page 9, line 3; and page 12, lines 9-10.
Appellant agrees with the examiner (see answer, pages 6-7) that the other claim
limitations do not require magazine 50 as described in Fig. 5a and page 11 of the specification as
contended in the brief (page 6), but argues that “[t]he claims . . . require an enclosure (e.g.,
magazine or other housing structure) that both ‘hous[es] an encapsulated object’ and also permits
‘exposing the encapsulated object in said enclosure to plasma gas’ as recited” (reply brief, page
3; emphasis in original deleted).
We find that while “an enclosure” must function as specified in appealed claim 43 as
appellant argues, we do not adopt the connotation of the term “housing” with respect to “an
enclosure” implied in appellant’s argument. Indeed, it is not at all apparent from the written
description in the specification that the term “an enclosure” is limited to a structure that “houses”
the encapsulated object and resides inside a reaction chamber, as required by appellant’s
argument, and we find no basis in the claim language or in the written description to read such a
limitation into the claim. The specification does state that “[a]s shown in Fig. 5a, a plurality of
encapsulated packages 52 may be arrayed into a plurality of storage units 54 (e.g., shelves), all
housed in a magazine 50” which contains vent holes 56 to permit plasma gas to react with the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007