Appeal No. 2004-0710
Application No. 09/726,260
define the circuit package having only “a single integrated
circuit element”. According to appellants “[t]he two circuit die
package[s] described by Ball will have a different form factor,
different mechanical properties, and different thermal properties
than the single integrated element package of Claims 11-20" (page
10 of principal brief, first paragraph, last sentence.
Although Ball is directed to an electronic circuit package
comprising two integrated circuit elements connected to the lead
frame, we concur with the examiner that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the lead
frame of Ball in an electronic package comprising only one
integrated circuit element. While Ball utilizes two circuit
elements for increasing the density of the package, it has
generally been held that it is a matter of obviousness for one of
ordinary skill in the art to eliminate a feature of the prior art
along with its attendant advantage. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Here, we are satisfied that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
design of Ball’s lead frame would also be suitable for an
electronic package comprising a single integrated circuit
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007