Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
metal base [brief, page 4]. Yet, we view the combination of
teachings of the three references as suggesting that the cover
of the Mahulikar combination be created by a molding process
as taught by Suzuki. As noted above, this combination would
meet the language of claim 1, and appellants have not properly
argued the nonobviousness of the invention over this
collective teaching of these references.
In view of the above comments, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since
claims 4-9 and 11 depend from claim 1 and contain only the
argued molded cap feature, these claims fall with claim 1.
With respect to the stepped lead frame feature, the
examiner refers to the plating on the Suzuki lead frame as
meeting this limitation of the claims. Appellants argue that
the solder plating of Suzuki cannot be considered to meet the
recitation of the lead frame as recited in the claims, and the
basis for applying the solder plating in Suzuki would provide
no similar benefit to the Mahulikar combination [brief, pages
6-7].
We agree with the position of appellants.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007