Appeal 2006-1454
Application 09/004,524
Patent 5,483,421
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 7 ultimately became
patent claim 7.
90. The Examiner reasoned as follows (see Answer, pages 3-4):
The fact that Claims 21 and 34 are narrower compared to the
originally filed Claims 1 and 7 (in the aspect of the above-cited
encapsulation material), and broader compared to the amended
(patented) Claims 1 and 7 (in the aspect of both the specific chip
carrier material, i.e., the glass filled epoxy, and the range of
coefficients of thermal expansion of the chip carrier, i.e., at least 17 ×
10-6 ppm/°C) has no relevance to the recapture issue as it applies to
Claims 21-25 and 34 of the instant reissue Application 09/004,524
now before the Board. This will be made clear in the arguments
presented below.
91. The Examiner further reasoned (see answer, pages 5 and 9):
(III). The sole issue upon which recapture depends in the
instant Reissue Application is the broadening of the patented claims of
Application '467 in aspects that were vigorously argued by the
Appellants, with agreement by the Board, as patentable over the prior
art of record in Application '467 and therefore germane to the prior art
rejection, as has already been indicated in the recapture rejection by
the present Examiner on pp.4 (bottom two lines) - 6 of the above-cited
prior Office Action (Paper No. 7).
. . .
(VI). Presently, the Appellants have pending a Reissue
Application (No. 09/004,524) wherein reissue Claims 21-25 and 34
are broader than the patented Claims 1-12 of Application '467 in two
aspects that are germane to the prior art rejection. Specifically, reissue
Claims 21 and 34 are recitations of patented Claims 1 and 7 of
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013