Ex parte Itihasi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 1997

07944967 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 1997)

Application for patent filed September 15, 1992.1
The amendment filed after the final rejection, on2
November 2, 1994 (Paper No. 16), has been entered.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MOTOMI ITIHASI
____________
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,9671
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 4. No claim has been
allowed. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.2
References Relied on by the Examiner
Japanese Laid-Open Application 63-40352 Feb. 20, 1988
(Shiga)
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-2-
Prior art acknowledged in the appellant's own specification.
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-3-
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shiga and the prior art acknowledged in the
appellant's specification..
The Invention
The invention is directed to a combination lead frame and
pressure sensor assembly. A die pad exists for the mounting of a
load member thereon, comprising one main die pad and two
auxiliary die pads. The auxiliary die pads are separate from and
disposed on opposite sides of the main die pad. There is an
outer frame having four sides. The supporting leads for the main
die pad are connected to a first side of the frame and the
supporting leads for the auxiliary die pads are connected to a
second side of the frame opposite the first side. Also, the
supporting leads for the main die pad and for the two auxiliary
die pads extend inwardly from the frame in opposite directions.
According to the appellant, a structure according to the
present invention provides more vertical stability in the
mounting of a load element on the die pad.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A lead frame and pressure sensor assembly comprising:
a unitary lead frame including:
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-4-
an annular outer frame having four sides and lying in a
first plane;
a die pad disposed within said frame comprising one
main die pad and two auxiliary die pads separate from
and disposed on opposite sides of said main die pad,
said main and auxiliary die pads being commonly
disposed in a second plane spaced from the first plane;
a main die pad supporting lead connected to a first
side of said frame and to said main die pad and two
auxiliary die pad supporting leads connected to a
second side of said frame opposite the first side of
said frame and to said two auxiliary die pads,
respectively, each supporting lead having a
predetermined length so that said main die pad and said
two auxiliary die pads lie in the second plane, said
main die pad supporting lead and said auxiliary die pad
supporting leads respectively extending inwardly from
said frame in opposite directions;
at least one connecting lead extending inwardly from
said frame for establishing an electrical connection to
an element mounted on said main die pad and said two
auxiliary die pads; and
a semiconductor pressure detecting element mounted on
said main die pad and said two auxiliary die pads.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1 and 4 cannot be sustained.
The examiner notes that the prior art discussed in the
appellant's specification does not include auxiliary pads
(answer at 3). With respect to Shiga, the examiner stated
(answer at 3-4):
In figures 1B and 1E, Shiga et al. teach a lead
frame including an annular outer frame having at least
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-5-
one main die pad (15) with a supporting lead (3); and
two or three auxiliary die pads (13, 14 or 16) with
supporting leads (3', 3'', or 3'''), separate from and
disposed on opposite sides of the main die pad (15),
each extending inwardly from an opposite direction from
the frame.
We find several errors and deficiencies in the examiner's
analysis. In Shiga's Figure 1(E), all of the four die pads in
the middle of the lead frame are connected. It cannot be
reasonably said that there are two auxiliary die pads separate
from a main die pad. Even if we consider the die pads of Shiga's
Figure 1(E) as separate, the Figure discloses nothing more than
Shiga's Figure 1(B) which has other deficiencies. The die pads
shown in Shiga's Figure 1(B) have supporting leads which are
evidently connected to the four corners of a lead frame. Thus,
it cannot be said that the supporting leads for the main die pad,
whichever one pad is denominated as the main die pad, are
connected to a first side, and that the supporting leads for two
auxiliary die pads, whichever two pads are denominated as
auxiliary die pads, are connected to a second side opposite the
first side.
In any event, not all pads in Shiga's Figure 1(B) may
constitute auxiliary die pads disposed on opposite sides of the
main die pad. In our view, an adjacent die pad and a diagonally
opposed die pad are not on opposite sides of the main die pad.
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-6-
The examiner erroneously concluded (answer at 5) that any two
auxiliary pads that are adjacent to one another are separated
from and disposed on opposite sides of a corresponding main die.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 requires that the
supporting leads for the main die pad and the supporting leads
for the two auxiliary die pads extend in "opposite directions."
Looking at Shiga's Figures 1(B) and 1(E), we do not see the
supporting leads for one main die pad going one way and the
supporting leads for two auxiliary die pads going in an
"opposite" direction. The examiner's conclusion that leads 3',
3'', and 3''' extend inwardly in opposite directions is without
basis. The most that can be said is that supporting leads 3' and
3''' extend in opposite directions and that supporting leads 3
and 3'' extend in opposite directions. But that is not enough to
meet the claim. The term "opposite" is not met by the more
generic characteristic of simply being "different." The examiner
has not adequately explained how two of the leads 3, 3', 3'', and
3''', extend in "opposite" direction with respect to another one
of 3, 3', 3'', and 3'''.
According to the appellant's specification, the various
"opposite side" and "opposite direction" features of the claim
are what allegedly give the appellant's invention the added
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-7-
stability in the mounting of a load element on the die pads.
These claim features cannot be ignored or made irrelevant by
talking about generalities.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and thus includes all the
limitations of claim 1.
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-8-
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga and the
appellant's own admitted prior art cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shiga and the appellant's own admitted
prior art is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
-9-
Leydig, Voit & Mayer
700 Thirteenth Street, NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005