Ex Parte Abbott et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1988                                                        
          Application No. 09/733,718                                                  

                 a base metal structure having an adherent layer of nickel            
                    covering said base metal;                                         
                 an adherent film of palladium on said nickel layer; and              
                 an adherent layer of palladium on said palladium film,               
                    selectively covering areas of said lead frame suitable            
                    for bonding wire attachment and solder attachment.                
               In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies           
          upon the following references:                                              
          Abys et al. (Abys)             5,360,991            Nov.  1, 1994           
          Tsuji et al. (Tsuji)           5,521,432            May  28, 1996           
          Kim et al. (Kim)               5,767,574            Jun. 16, 1998           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a leadframe               
          that is used in the assembly of integrated circuit chips.  The              
          leadframe comprises a base metal structure having a nickel layer            
          adhered thereon, a palladium film adhered on the nickel layer,              
          and a layer of palladium adhered on the palladium film.  The                
          layer of palladium selectively covers areas of the leadframe that           
          are suitable for bonding wire and solder attachments.                       
               Appealed claims 1-3, 5, 9 and 21-23 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim.  Claims 21-23               
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by             
          Abys.  In addition, claims 4, 6, 10 and 11 stand rejected under             
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, whereas                  
          claims 8 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as               
          being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tsuji.                               
                                         -2-                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007