Ex Parte Hesen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2013

10560447 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAULUS MARTINUS CATHARINA HESEN,
PETER WILHELMUS MARIA VAN DE WATER, and
CORNELIS GERARDUS SCHRIKS
____________

Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1-10 and 12-16. Appeal Brief 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The present invention is directed to a lead frame having “a frame and
first and second connection conductors respectively connected to the frame
and provided with a non-end portion within the perimeter of the frame.”
Appeal Brief 2-3.
Illustrative Claim
1. A lead frame comprising:
a frame;
first and second connection conductors respectively
connected to the frame and provided with a non-engaging end
portion within a perimeter of the frame, the end portion of the
second connection conductor being positioned adjacent an
extension of the first connection conductor, the second
connection conductor configured to bend along a bending axis
which is at an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal
axis of the end portion to position the end portion of the second
connection conductor opposite the first connection conductor to
secure a semiconductor element between said connection
conductors.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b) as being anticipated by Coldren (U.S. Patent Number 4,252,864;
issued February 24, 1981). Answer 3-10.
Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447

3
Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coldren and Sakamoto (U.S. Patent Number 6,975,022
B2; issued December 13, 2005). Answer 11-13.
Issue on Appeal
Do Coldren and Sakamoto, either alone or in combination, disclose a
lead frame having chip securing features as claimed?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as a group (with no
mention of claim 16), however, it is not apparent which claims Appellants
are addressing because some of the limitations argued are not germane to all
of the independent claims and therefore Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. See Appeal Brief 6-8. For
example, without specifically indicating a claim, Appellants argue that the
“connectors” cited in the rejection are neither freely-extending or within a
perimeter. Id. at 6. Neither of Appellants’ independent claims 1 or 13
recites “freely-extending” limitations. Further, independent claims 3, 4, 10,
and 13 do not recite limitations having connectors positioned within a
perimeter. The Examiner finds that Coldren teaches connection conductors
Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447

4
that freely extend in Figures 1-5. Answer 3-4. It is clear from the Coldren’s
Figures, Figures 4 and 5 especially, that the first and second connection
conductors (60 and 72) have end portions that freely extend. It is also
evident from Coldren’s Figures 1, 4, and 5 that connection conductors are
within the perimeter of the frame in the same manner as Appellants’
invention as it is broadly recited in the claims.
Appellants also argue that Coldren does not disclose “two end
portions that respectively engage opposite sides of a semiconductor element
as claimed.” Appeal Brief 8. Examiner finds that Coldren discloses the
invention as claimed because the claims do not indicate if “the two end
portions are supposed to connect to opposite sides of the chip as in top and
bottom or left and right.” Answer 15. Independent claim 10 does not recite
limitations involving the orientation of the end portions. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings because the independent claims (1, 3, 4, and 13) that
actually recite “opposite” orientation limitations do not specify the nature of
the orientation.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15, as well as claim 16, because Appellants have not
convinced us that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being
anticipated by Coldren for the reasons stated above.
Appellants further contend the rejection of claims 5 and 13 because
Coldren cited lead frame “does not have components that either extend
freely or do so within a perimeter as claimed.” Appeal Brief 9. However,
we have already addressed Appellants’ contentions in this regard and we
agreed, as stated above, with the Examiner’s findings that Coldren teaches
the limitations in question. Appellants also argue that Coldren fails to teach
Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447

5
“respective portions of a lead frame are bent at 90 degrees along an out-of-
plane bending axis” as well as failing to “disclose related limitations
involving connection conductors bent along axes at oblique angles as
claimed, with respective arrangements” in regard to claim 13. Appeal Brief
9.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Coldren discloses the
limitations in question because claim 5 does not require the portions of the
lead frames are bent at 90 degrees only at an approximation to 90 degrees at
some non-descript bending axis which is subject to a reasonably broad
interpretation. Further, claim 13 contain limitations pertaining to non-
descript bending axis which is also subject to a reasonably broad
interpretation and therefore fail to distinguish the claimed invention over
Coldren.
Appellants further argue that the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and
14 is improper because the references “teach away from the same” because
combining the references would entail moving Sakamoto’s member 30
however, such a modification would contradict the purpose and teachings of
Sakamoto. Appeal Brief 10. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be
persuasive because the Examiner proposes modifying Coldren by employing
Sakamoto’s method for mounting the semiconductor element by utilizing a
suction device. Answer 11-12. We are not persuaded that the employment
of Sakamoto’s suction method teaches away from “such a modification” in
the manner in which Appellants contends and therefore we sustain the
Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 14. Appeal Brief 10.

Appeal 2010-012365
Application 10/560,447

6
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claim 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 is
affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 14 is affirmed.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw