Appeal No. 2004-0700
Application No. 09/531,671
Under these circumstances, we, like the examiner, find that
claim 14 is anticipated by Khandros (i.e., patentee’s express as
well as inherent disclosure) wherein at least a portion of the
integrated circuits and lead frames are encapsulated or covered.
We also share the examiner’s finding that appealed dependent
claim 15 is anticipated by Khandros wherein patentee’s sheet of
lead frames comprises a composite of metal and interposer
material. In the appellant’s view, “anything in Khandros that
can reasonably be called a ‘lead frame’ is not a unitary sheet of
material, but is rather a composite of metal on a sheetlike
dielectric [i.e., the interposer of Khandros]” (brief, page 5).
As correctly explained by the examiner in the paragraph bridging
pages 13 and 14 of the answer, the appellant’s claimed unitary
sheet of material is not limited to only a single type of
material such as metal. Thus, for reasons analogous to those
discussed above, it is appropriate to interpret claim 15 as
encompassing a unitary sheet of composite material such as the
metal/interposer composite of Khandros. See In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d at 1772, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 and Comack Communications, Inc.
v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d at 1186, 48 USPQ2d at 1005.
Finally, like the examiner, we also reach a finding of
anticipation with respect to argued claims 21, 25 and 31-33. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007