Appeal No. 2004-0700
Application No. 09/531,671
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
We share the examiner’s finding that appealed independent
claim 14 is anticipated by the Figure 32 disclosure of Khandros.
According to the appellant, Khandros fails to disclose the here
claimed encapsulating step. The appellant describes his position
on this matter in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the
brief with the language set forth below:
Khandros does not disclose such a feature [i.e., the
encapsulating step of claim 14]. See Figure 2, column
11, lines 14-18 of Khandros where the encapsulant 60
covers only the junctures of the leads 50 with the
contacts 40. See also Figure 32, column 17, line 3
where only the leads are mentioned as being
encapsulated. The encapsulant therefore does not
encase or enclose the integrated circuit and leadframe.
The appellant’s position is not well taken. Khandros’s step
of encapsulating his leads (see Figure 32 and the paragraph
bridging columns 16 and 17 in comparison with Figure 2 and the
disclosure relating thereto) would necessarily and inherently
also encapsulate or cover at least a portion of the integrated
circuits to which these leads are connected. It may be the
appellant considers appealed claim 14 to require that the entire,
rather than at least a portion, of the integrated circuit be
encapsulated or covered as shown in Figures 1D and 1E of his
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007