Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
said bottom surface," requires that the second wall surface is above at least
part of the first wall surface and, hence, upward from an upper edge of the
first wall surface. Thus, claim 16, although differently worded, is essentially
the same scope as claim 1 and the subject matter of claim 16, is not
anticipated by Brahmbhatt for the reasons stated in the discussion of
Issue (1). The anticipation rejection of claim 16 is reversed for this reason.
Issue (3): Does Brahmbhatt disclose a "second wall surface . . . to
limit horizontal movement of the semiconductor integrated circuit
device"? (Claims 1 and 16.)
Arguments
Patent Owners argue that Brahmbhatt does not disclose a "second wall
surface disposed around a circumference of the semiconductor integrated
circuit device so as to limit horizontal movement of the integrated circuit
device" (Patent Owners' Br. 10). It is argued that the structure of
Brahmbhatt will not physically permit contact between the surface
portion 70 (which the Examiner finds to correspond to the "second wall
surface") and the component 12, as evidenced by Exhibit A to the brief (id.
at 11-12). It is argued that the Examiner acknowledges that Brahmbhatt
does not limit horizontal movement, but improperly attempts to make up for
this deficiency by stating that the semiconductor device does not have to be
rectangular (id. at 12). It is argued that the Examiner attempts to render the
claimed second wall meaningless by alleging that the semiconductor device
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013