Appeal No. 2002-0552
Application No. 09/117,603
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted rejection and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding the
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
20, mailed October 19, 2001) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 19, filed August
20, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed January 18, 2002)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claim 3,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner's rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will
not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner's position (answer, pages 3-5) is that Suzuki
discloses all of the subject matter of claim 3, except that it
does not identify the resin sealant (10) disposed between the
leads (3), terminals (4, 4A) and housing (2) therein as being
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007