Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Analysis
As a matter of claim interpretation, we conclude that the limitation of
"a second wall surface disposed around a circumference of the
semiconductor integrated circuit device so as to limit horizontal movement
of the semiconductor integrated circuit device" does not define how much or
under what conditions the second wall surface limits horizontal movement.
The limitation can be interpreted to mean that the second wall
surface prevents any horizontal movement of the integrated circuit device
from its seated position, or that it limits horizontal movement when the
circuit device is displaced (slightly or a great deal) from its seated position.
The portion 70 of the surface 68 adjacent the junction 66 and the
corner face 69.7 are both substantially vertical surfaces, perpendicular to the
base 20, and extend above the top of the component 12 when it is seated.
The tip 19.1 of the corner 19 of the component 12 is slightly separated from
the face 69.7 of the junction 66 when the component is in the seated position
(Fig. 5; col. 5, ll. 61-65). Brahmbhatt does not describe any function for the
portions 70 and face 69.7; thus, any rejection must rely on inherency.
"Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities."
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
If the component 12 is displaced laterally from its seated position, the
component 12 will ride up the ridges 69.1 and will never hit the surfaces 70.
If the component 12 is displaced diagonally from its seated position, it
appears that the tip 19.1 of the component 12 will hit the face 69.7 and not
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013