Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
disclose that the magnitude of current is controlled by the positioning of a bond wire on
an input lead is not commensurate in scope with the express language recited in
independent claim 55.
Here, it appears that appellants are arguing the express location of the
placement of the bond wire on the lead is the control. We do not find such a process
limitation in the language of independent claim 55. Independent claim 55 recites a
structure including “ first bond wire coupled between . . . a first edge of the first input
lead; and a second bond wire coupled between . . . a second edge of the first input lead
. . . .” We find that each of Nakayama, Dickson and Notani teaches the use of bond
wires coupled at the edges of a single lead as recited in independent claim 55.
Therefore, we do not find the argument persuasive. Furthermore, we find that any
placement of the bond wires would have controlled the magnitude of the current since
the location would not change. Since we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted, we will
sustain the rejection of independent claim 55 and dependent claim 56.
With respect to independent claim 39, the examiner relies upon the teachings of
Seshita to teach the claimed “a die; a first input bond pad mounted on the die; a first
input lead; and a first bond wire positioned on the first input lead to control the
magnitude of high frequency current delivered to the first input bond pad.” We agree
with the examiner and find that the placement of the bond wire would necessarily
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007