Ex Parte 6357595 et al - Page 41



                Appeal 2006-3236                                                                                
                Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006                                               

                       The inclined surface leading into the pocket in Figure 17 corresponds                    
                to a "first wall surface" and is capable of supporting an edge of the package                   
                of an integrated circuit device.  Of course, the surface is not capable of                      
                supporting the edge of a package unless a package exists that is larger than                    
                the package 12 shown in Figure 17.  We take Official Notice of the facts that                   
                integrated circuit packages come in different sizes and that trays are                          
                designed for a certain package size.3  The tray in Figure 17 can be for a                       
                small package, where the inclined surface is capable of supporting a larger                     
                package.  Brahmbhatt expressly describes the use of an inclined surface to                      
                support the edge of a package.                                                                  
                       The vertical wall surface above the upper edge of the inclined wall                      
                guide-in surface corresponds to a "second wall surface" and is capable of                       
                limiting the horizontal movement of the device in the same way as the                           
                                                                                                               
                       3 A traverse of a finding of Official Notice requires more than just a                   
                statement that the fact is not in a reference.  A "traverse" is "[a] formal                     
                denial of a factual allegation in the opposing party's pleading," Black's Law                   
                Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).  That is, a traverse is similar to answering the                     
                factual allegations in a complaint in a civil action.  Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)                 
                ("A party shall . . . admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse                        
                party relies.  If a party is without knowledge or information sufficient to                     
                form a belief as to the truth of an averment, the party shall so state and this                 
                has the effect of a denial.").  An applicant or patent owner may traverse a                     
                finding of Official Notice by simply averring that "those of ordinary skill in                  
                the art were not aware of [the fact]" or that "applicant [or patent owner] is                   
                without any knowledge or information as to whether those of ordinary skill                      
                in the art were aware of [the fact]."  This avoids putting the Office to the                    
                task of proving a fact which is well known.                                                     
                                                     - 41 -                                                     



Page:  Previous  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013