Appeal No. 2005-2711
Application No. 10/028,015
limiting it to the orientation of the package with respect to the
electrical connections, as Appellants would have wanted us to
believe.
Based on our findings above, we agree with the Examiner that
Guzuk prima facie anticipates the claimed subject matter in the
representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as well as claims 3-8,
which fall with their base claim as they have not been separately
argued.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as
anticipated by Ueda. Upon our review of the reference, we remain
unconvinced by Appellants that the relied on portion of Ueda does
not teach the claimed metallization layer (brief, page 5). In
particular, we find the Examiner’s characterization of layer 53
which extends beyond a corner of the upper portion 6 for
indicating an orientation of the package to be reasonable.
Although portion 53 is referred to as the cap connecting pattern
(col. 10, line 54), it is an extension of die-attach portion 16,
which is conducting metallization layer on the lower portion of
the package and is ultimately connected to ground terminal 14
9col. 10, lines 48-53). Therefore, in view of the Examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007