11426157 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Matsunami

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 18, 2012

11426157 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte AKIRA MATSUNAMI ____________________ Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THU A. DANG, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2007). Claim 1 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2007). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention provides a microelectronic device encapsulated within a packaging material (Spec. 2, ¶ [0007]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 5 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 5. A microelectronic device package, comprising: a microelectronic device encapsulated within a packaging material; and a lead attached to a portion of the microelectronic device that extends through the packaging material, the lead comprises a break portion and a non-break portion on a tip of the lead, the break comprises a stitch located at the tip of the lead. Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 3 C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cozar US 5,888,848 Mar. 30, 1999 Sugihara US 6,392,293 B2 May 21, 2002 Ikawa US 2006/0060982 A1 Mar. 23, 2006 Claims 2-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Sugihara and Ikawa. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Sugihara and Ikawa in view of Cozar.1 II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding that Sugihara in view of Ikawa would have suggested a lead that “comprises a break,” wherein “the break comprises a stitch located at the tip of the lead” (claim 5)? In particular, the issue turns on whether Ikawa discloses a “stitch.” III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 Although the Examiner’s Answer indicates that the rejection of claim 9 over Sugihara, Ikawa and Cozar is a new ground of rejection (Ans. 7-8), Appellant acknowledges that though it appears that claim 9 stands rejected over Sughihara and Cozar in the Final Rejection, Appellant understands claim 9 to stand rejected over Sugihara, Ikawa and Cozar (App. Br. 9). Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 4 Sugihara 1) Sugihara discloses outer leads that extend outward from within a package that seals a semiconductor chip (Abstract), wherein Sugihara’s Fig. 10(F) is reproduced below: Sugihara’s Fig. 10F discloses a semiconductor package 1 and an outer lead 2 with a depression 11 formed in the outer lead 2, wherein the lead is bent to have a predetermined shape and the lead is cut in such a manner that the depression 11 is located at the distal end of the remaining portion of the lead (col. 7, ll. 42-59). Ikawa 2) Ikawa discloses a power semiconductor module which includes a lead frame having inner and outer lead portions, wherein the outer lead portions are connected by soldering to semiconductor chips simultaneously (Abstract). Ikawa’s Fig. 12(A) is reproduced below: Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 5 Ikawa’s Fig. 12A discloses an epoxy resin loaded in the terminal casing (p. 3, ¶ [0049]), wherein leads 51 are connected by tie bars 53. 3) Ikawa’s Fig. 13(A) is reproduced below: Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 6 Ikawa’s Fig. 13A discloses that lead portions 6 are formed by pressing the outer-lead-side portions of the lead 51 perpendicularly to the plane of the leads 51 to cut off the tie-bars 53 such that leads 51 become separated from each other (p. 5, ¶ [0079]). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 2-8, and 10-20 Appellant contends that “Ikawa appears to teach forming outer lead portions of lead frame by cutting off tie-bars” (App. Br. 11) and thus, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, does not show “leads wherein the break comprises a stitch located at the tip of the lead” (App. Br. 10). That is, Appellant contends that “[t]he Office Action fails to indicate what the Office Action considers to be a stitch located at the tip of the lead” (App. Br. 11). Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 7 The Examiner, however, finds that “a stitch is a portion of the lead tip that retains its plated finish after shearing of the lead from the lead frame tie bar as a consequence of the form of the lead tip” (Ans. 8). Thus, the Examiner finds that Ikawa “shows that the lead tips as formed on the lead frame at references number 51 show a narrowing where attached to the tie bar 53 which is understood to correspond to the stitch” wherein “when the lead frame tie bar is removed from the leads 51 . . . . , a portion of the lead tip is not cut or otherwise damaged” (id.). The Examiner also finds that Sugihara “discloses the form of the leads as recited in the claim including a recess or groove formed in the lower portion of the lead at the tip” and thus “shaping the lead tip to incorporate a ‘stitch’ is clearly known in the art” (id.). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings. To determine Sugihara in view of Ikawa would have suggested a lead that “comprises a break,” wherein “the break comprises a stitch located at the tip of the lead” as recited in representative claim 5, we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Representative claim 5 does not define what a “stitch” is to mean, comprise or represent other than the break comprises a stitch located at the tip of the lead. In fact, Appellant’s Specification also does not define as to what is a “stitch” but instead merely provides an exemplary embodiment in Figs. 1a and 1b as element 104c and describes it as “reduces the overall size or area of the break 104b on the leads 104” (Spec. 8, ¶ [0028]). Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 8 Accordingly, we give “stitch” its broadest but reasonable definition as to an area of the break located at the tip of the lead that reduces the overall size or area of the break, as specifically defined by the claims and consistent with the Specification. Though Appellant contends that “Ikawa appears to teach forming outer lead portions of lead frame by cutting off tie-bars” (App. Br. 11) and accordingly does not show a “stitch,” nothing in the claims preclude a stitch comprised in an outer lead portion that is formed by cutting off a tie bar. Ikawa discloses lead portions formed by pressing the outer-lead-side portions of the lead 51 perpendicularly to the plane of the leads 51 to cut off the tie-bars 53, such that leads 51 become separated from each other (FF 2- 3). We find Ikawa to disclose a break which comprises a pressed portion at the tip of the lead, wherein the pressed portion reduces the overall area of the break. Accordingly, we find Ikawa to disclose “stitch” in the break located at the tip of the lead that reduces the overall size or area of the break, as required by claim 5. That is, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Ikawa “shows that the lead tips as formed on the lead frame at references number 51 show a narrowing where attached to the tie bar 53 which is understood to correspond to the stitch” (App. Br. 8). Furthermore, Sugihara discloses an outer lead with a depression, wherein the lead is cut in such a manner that the depression is located at the distal end of the remaining portion of the lead (FF 1). We find Sugihara to disclose a lead with a depression at a break at the distal end of the lead and thus also find Sugihara to disclose “stitch” in the break located at the tip of the lead that reduces the overall size or area of the break, as required by Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 9 claim 5. That is, we also find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Sugihara “discloses the form of the leads as recited in the claim including a recess or groove formed in the lower portion of the lead at the tip” and thus “shaping the lead tip to incorporate a ‘stitch’ is clearly known in the art” (Ans. 8). Thus, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 5 and claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-20 falling therewith unpatentable over Sugihara and Ikawa. Claim 9 As for claim 9, Appellant similarly argues that “[c]laim 9 is allowable for at least the same reasons as delineated in Sections VII(A)(1) [with respect to claims 2-8 and 10-20]” (App. Br. 8). As discussed above with respect to claims 2-8 and 10-20, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s finding that the combined teaching of Sugihara and Ikawa at least suggests the claimed features. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9, depending respectively from claim 7 over Sugihara and Ikawa in further view of Cozar. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-001340 Application 11/426,157 10 peb