Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
both the problem of horizontal peripheral bottom supports and Brahmbhatt's
solution of an inclined surface peripheral lower edge support.
One of ordinary skill in the semiconductor tray art would have been
motivated to substitute an inclined support surface for the horizontal support
surface in the pocket of prior art Figure 17 in Brahmbhatt to support the
package along the edge to overcome the known problem with the prior art as
taught by Brahmbhatt. The teaching-suggestion-motivation for the
modification is found in the express teachings of Brahmbhatt itself.
Figure 17 of Brahmbhatt, as modified to include an inclined first wall
surface, teaches claims 2 and 9-11. It would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to provide second storage portions on the opposite surface
from the storage portions in Figure 17, as recited in claims 5-8, in view of
the express teachings of Brahmbhatt, which has second storage portions.
(2)
Second, consider that Figures 11, 12, 14, and 15 of Brahmbhatt teach
an inclined first wall surface for supporting the edge of a component, but do
not teach a second wall surface for limiting horizontal movement.
Brahmbhatt, Figures 11, 12, 14, and 15, discloses tray embodiments
having inclined wall surfaces 80 (corresponding to a "first wall surface")
parallel to the side surfaces 13 of the component 12 and supporting the
peripheral lower edges of the component 12. The differences between this
embodiment and the claimed subject matter are that the embodiments do not
disclose: (1) a "second wall surface disposed around a circumference of the
- 46 -
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013