Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
86. The record supports the Examiner's findings with respect to what
limitations do not appear in reissue application claims 21-25 and 34 which were
present in claims 1 and 7 of the original application, as allowed.
87. An Examiner’s Answer (“the Answer”) was entered October 19,
2000.
88. The Examiner maintained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251 and set
forth an alternative theory of the rejection.
89. The Examiner also based the rejection of claims 21-25 and 34 on the
grounds that when faced in the original application with a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Soga and Frankeny prior art patents, applicants made two
significant amendments:
(1) First, applicants amended rejected independent claim 1 to add
the requirements that the material of the chip carrier is a “glass filled epoxy” and
that “said chip carrier having a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least at least
17 × 10-6 ppm/c°”; amended original application claim 1 ultimately became patent
claim 1.
(2) Second, applicants amended rejected independent claim 7 to
add the requirements that the material of the chip carrier is a “glass filled epoxy”
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013