Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
A reference must be evaluated for all it fairly suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009,
158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968) ("The use of patents as references is not
limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the
problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of
the art, relevant for all they contain."). All disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. See
In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
Again, we find that Brahmbhatt evidences the level of ordinary skill in
the art and evidences that a person of ordinary skill in the art is an ordinary
designer of semiconductor trays. One of ordinary skill in the semiconductor
tray art would have appreciated from Figure 17 pf Brahmbhatt, if not from
personal experience, that it was known to use vertical engagement surfaces
to constrain the lateral (horizontal) movement of the component in the
pocket. One skilled in the art also would have appreciated the prior art
arrangement of a guide-in surface leading to a vertical engagement wall 82
in Figure 17 could be used if the advantage of a thinner tray thickness was
not needed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor tray art
would have been motivated to modify the inclined "first wall surfaces" in
Figures 11, 12, 14, and 15 by adding a vertical "second wall surface . . . to
limit horizontal movement of the semiconductor integrated circuit device,"
to further restrain movement of the component and to provide the guide-in
surface and vertical wall 82 of Figure 17 if the advantages of a thinner tray
- 49 -
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013