Appeal No. 2005-0883
Application No. 08/964,518
materials and incorporated into the leadframe assembly at
different times. Hence, even if the lead retaining section 14
constitutes a stabilizer extending or adhered partially along the
length of and on each side of leads 12 as recited in the appealed
claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
the die pad 11 to be integral with and a part of this stabilizer
as recited in claims 1 and 6, or the production of the leadframe
assembly to involve the steps of (1) providing a stabilizer
having a die pad integral therewith and (2) adhering the
stabilizer to the leads as recited in claim 10. Thus, the
examiner’s determination that Hojyo meets the above noted
limitations in claims 1, 6 and 10 is unsound.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 10, and
dependent claims 2 through 5, 7 through 9 and 11 through 14, as
being anticipated by Hojyo.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007