Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
Although Brahmbhatt discloses second storage portions on a surface
opposite to the first surface, as recited in claims 5-8, this is not expressly
shown in Figure 17. Therefore, claims 5-8 are not rejected as anticipated.
We briefly comment on why the Examiner did not adopt the
Requester's proposed anticipation rejection. The Examiner found that the
vertical wall surface, which the Requester found to correspond to the
"second wall surface," was not "inclined . . . with respect to the horizontal."
See Action Closing Prosecution 7. This is wrong because a vertical surface
is inclined at an angle of 90° with respect to the horizontal. A vertical
surface is not inclined with respect to a vertical surface. Thus, the
Examiner's rationale is not persuasive.
Obviousness
Brahmbhatt - claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 16
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 16 are unpatentable for obviousness for the
reasons stated in the anticipation rejection because anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 16 are also unpatentable
for obviousness for the following additional reasons.
Brahmbhatt discloses a semiconductor tray having inclined wall
surfaces to support an integrated circuit package along its lower peripheral
edges to prevent contact between the tray and the solder ball terminals and
also to center the package within the pocket. For this reason, Patent Owners
- 43 -
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013