Appeal No. 2005-0234
Application No. 09/901,550
24 is a parting agent "disposed thereon for repelling the
flowable material." The examiner suggests (Answer, page 11) that
groove 10 is "capable of performing the intended use [of a
barrier for flowable material]" and, therefore, meets the claimed
barrier. Similarly, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 11) that
element 24 is not structurally different from a parting agent,
particularly because "Appellant [sic] never specifically defined
in the specification of instant invention that what material is
used for the parting agent, thus any material reads on as the
parting agent."
Appellants have two convincing arguments. First, appellants
argue (Brief, pages 8-9), and we agree, that the epoxy resin
referenced by the examiner as being the claimed flowable material
"in no way refers to preventing a lateral material flow along the
support matrix surface." The claims recite that the barrier
prevents a flow of "a flowable material from said bonding channel
onto said frame and onto said conductor track structures." There
is nothing in column 10, lines 42-46, of Wiech, the portion
referenced by the examiner, that suggests that the epoxy resin
encapsulating material a) flows b) from a bonding channel onto
the frame and conductor tracks. Wiech instead indicates that the
material is a) sprayed onto b) "[a]ll or part of the substrate,"
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007