Appeal No. 1997-1336
Application 08/267,433
obvious to the artisan for the reasons asserted by the
examiner.
For all the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 as proposed by the examiner. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 9 and 10 which are
grouped with claim 1. Claim 7 recites that the end of the
fuse wire projects slightly from the face of the resin
package. The connection in Bougger relies on such a slight
projection from the face of the resin package [note lead 44].
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claim 7.
With respect to the different rejections of claims 3-5,
appellant makes no additional arguments in support of the
patentability of these claims, and instead, appellant relies
on the arguments made with respect to claim 1 [brief, pages
15-16]. Since we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and since no additional arguments are presented, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 3-5.
Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yamane in view of Bougger and further in
view of Breen. Only claim 8 is argued by appellant. Claim 8
recites that the end of the fuse wire is flush with the face
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007