Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
canceled claims 12-15 of the '595 patent, which do not recite a second wall
surface extending upward from the upper edge of the first wall surface. The
claims on appeal recite a second wall surface for limiting horizontal
movement which extends upward from the inclined first wall surface.
The obviousness issue can be approached in two different ways.
(1)
First, consider that Figure 17 of Brahmbhatt teaches a second wall
surface for limiting horizontal movement of a component, but does not teach
an inclined first wall surface for supporting a component edge.
Figure 17 of Brahmbhatt discloses a prior art pocket structure having
a vertical surface leading to an angled guide-in surface which extends to a
vertical surface 82 ("second wall surface") which constrains the side
surface 13 of the component 12. See col. 6, ll. 35-38. A horizontal ledge
("first wall surface") supports the peripheral bottom surface of the
component package. The difference between Figure 17 and the subject
matter of claims 1 and 16 is that Figure 17 does not have "said first wall
surface being inclined at an angle so as to support an edge of the package of
the semiconductor integrated circuit device. "
A rejection must articulate the reasons why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to select the references and to combine or
modify them to render the claimed invention obvious. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Motivation
may be found expressly or implicitly in the references. Id. at 987-88,
- 44 -
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013