Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
semiconductor integrated circuit device so as to limit horizontal movement
of the semiconductor integrated circuit device," as recited in claims 1
and 16; (2) "said second wall surface extending upward from an upper edge
of said first wall surface, wherein said second wall surface is inclined at an
angle larger than the angle of said first wall surface, with respect to the
horizontal," as recited in claim 1; and (3) "said second wall surface
extending from said first wall surface in a direction away from said first
surface of said main body, wherein said second wall surface is inclined at an
angle larger than the angle of said first wall surface, with respect to the
horizontal," as recited in claim 16.
Brahmbhatt discloses that it was known that "earlier trays utilize
vertical side walls of other structures with vertical engagement surfaces
which constrain the lateral movement of the component in the pocket"
(col. 1, l. 66, to col. 2, l. 1). 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 engagement surface 82 and then to a
horizontal ledge. The vertical surface 82 constrains horizontal movement of
the side surface 13 of the component 12. See col. 6, ll. 35-38. The
horizontal ledge supports the peripheral bottom surface of the component
package. Brahmbhatt discloses that an advantage of using an inclined
support surface with an "angled guide-in surface portion extending all the
way to the seating surface" (col. 3, ll. 20-22), instead of an "inclined surface
leading into a pocket with vertical sidewalls as shown in FIG. 17" (col. 6,
- 47 -
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013