Ex Parte GEDNEY et al - Page 51



              Appeal 2006-1454                                                                                         
              Application 09/004,524                                                                                   
              Patent 5,483,421                                                                                         

                                             B.  The Prima Facie Case                                                  
                                                         (1)                                                           
                                     Examiner’s First Theory of the Rejection                                          
                     Our Findings of Fact 81-85 set out the basis upon which the Examiner                              
              originally made a recapture rejection in the Final Office Action.  As noted in                           
              Finding of Fact 86, the record supports the Examiner’s findings.                                         
                     Basically, in the application which matured into the patent now sought to be                      
              reissued, the Examiner rejected originally filed independent claims 1 and 7 over                         
              the prior art.  Applicants proceeded to re-write application claim 1 by adding                           
              limitations.  Amended application claim 1 issued as patent claim 1.  Applicants                          
              also proceeded to re-write application claim 7 by adding limitations.  Amended                           
              application claim 7 issued as patent claim 7.                                                            
                     The Examiner made six points in Findings of Fact 83 and 84:                                       
                     (1) reissue claims 21-23 and 34 are broader than the original patent claims                       
                            by the following two limitations: (1) the requirement that the material                    
                            of the chip carrier is a “glass filled epoxy” has not been included in                     
                            these claims; and (2) the requirement of “said chip carrier having a                       



                                                        - 51 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013