Appeal No. 2001-0017
Application No. 09/040,479
view that any suggestion to make the combination suggested by the
Examiner could only come from Appellants’ own disclosure and not
from any teachings or suggestions in the references themselves.
Accordingly, since the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the rejection of independent claims 1,
10, 15, and 22, as well as claims 2-8, 11, 12, 14, 16-21, 23, and
24 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 25 based on the
combination of Shimizu and Andrews ‘340, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of this claim as well. Unlike independent
claims 1, 10, 15, and 22 previously discussed, independent claim
25 does not contain the “similarly sized and shaped” language
relating to the signal and impedance control pins. This claim,
however, does have specific recitations requiring, inter alia,
“impedance control pins,” a feature which we found lacking of any
teaching or suggestion, individually or collectively, in the
Shimizu and Andrews ‘340 references discussed supra.
We have also reviewed the Andrews ‘887 and Thenaisie
references applied by the Examiner to address the claimed details
of the pin beam and shield surround configurations, respectively.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007