Appeal No. 2004-1988
Application No. 09/733,718
Claim 8 requires that "said palladium layer provides visual
distinction to the areas covered by said layer." The examiner's
statement in support of the rejection that "the process
limitation (providing visual distinction) does not carry weight
in a claim drawn to a structure" (page 2 of Answer, second
paragraph) constitutes reversible error. We agree with
appellants that the claim recitation is not a process limitation
but, rather, a limitation regarding a physical characteristic of
the claimed leadframe.
Upon return of this application to the examiner, the
examiner should consider whether the palladium alloyed layer of
Kim, in fact, provides a visual distinction to the area covered
by the alloyed layer, bearing in mind the examiner's rationale
discussed above regarding the exposed side surfaces of the
palladium film.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejections of claims 1-6, 9-16 and 21-23 are sustained. The
examiner's rejection of claim 8 is reversed. Accordingly,
the examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007