Appeal No. 2004-0463
Application 09/827,791
is shown as being bonded not to the elongate portion but, rather,
to the shorter arm of lead 16 which is parallel to the die pad.
As for the claim requirement that the proximal end of the
second lead is proximate to the first lead, the examiner merely
asserts that “[t]he device [APAF 1-3] includes a wire bonding arm
extending along the die pad in a spaced relation thereto, the
wire bonding arm defining the proximal end of the second lead
which is disposed proximate to the first lead” (answer, page 5).
The examiner not explained how, in light of the appellants’
specification, the proximal end of the second lead reasonably can
be considered proximate to the first lead when the proximal ends
of the leads have lead 18, permanently connected to the die pad
(specification, page 2, lines 11-12), between them (figure 1).
For at least the above reasons the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellants’
claimed invention. Thus, we need not address the other disputed
issues involving APAF 1-3, Huang and Magni.1
1 The examiner does not rely upon Huang or Magni for any
teaching that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the
examiner’s argument as to APAF 1-3.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007