Appeal No. 2006-1230 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/137,586
We turn next to claim 6. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 9
and 10) that Saito does not teach that the characters could be
bonded or fused to the surface of the molded resin member 1.
From our review of Saito, we agree with the examiner for the
reasons set forth in the answer (page 8) that the laser or
ultraviolet irradiation would fuse the characters to the surface
of the molded resin member 1, and that if the characters were not
fused to the surface of the molded resin member, they would fall
off. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 7. As this claim has not been argued
by appellant, it falls with claim 1 from which it depends. The
rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 8. Appellant asserts (brief, page 10)
that Saito does not teach that the surface on which the markings
are located comprises a surface of a semiconductor die. (See
also reply brief, page 3). From our review of Saito, we note
that the claim does not recite that the markings are directly
located on the surface of the die. As broadly claimed, we agree
with the examiner (answer, page 9) that:
Saito teaches an encapsulant resin material 1
covering at least a portion of a semiconductor die,
since a semiconductor die is inherently located
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007