Appeal 2007-2342
Application 10/884,654
Specification (Spec. 3), the Examiner concluded that the manufacturing
process recited in claim 1 was known – except for the step of “substantially
filling the cavity in the pin carrier with an encapsulant.” Appellant does not
dispute that the claimed process steps, including securing an electronic
component to a cavity within the pin carrier, were known. Wakashima
describes filling a gap with resin at a thin region of a substrate in a
semiconductor package in order to strengthen it. This description is relied
upon by the Examiner as a teaching or suggestion to have modified the
process for manufacturing the prior art electronic package. Thus, the
Examiner has identified all elements of the claimed invention in the prior art
and a reason to have modified it to arrive at the claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Claims
2-19 fall with claim 1 because separate arguments for their patentability
were not presented. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
Ssc
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG, WOESSNER & KLUTH, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013