Appeal 2007-0462
Application 09/519,547
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lazzery in view of Lightbody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Iguchi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 25, 2004) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Aug. 5, 2003) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
From our review of the Examiner’s rejection and responsive arguments
in the Examiner’s Answer, we find that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention and we look to
Appellants’ Brief to show error therein. While the Examiner finds the
teachings of Lazzery to be deficient with respect to teaching a resilient pin
which provides variable pressure metal to metal contact, we find that
Lazzery does have two rubber pins (rolling pin type, see col. 2, ll. 46-55),
24, which are resilient and provide metal-to-metal contact between the
conducting connections on the first substrate and the conducting tracks on
the support. Additionally, we find each of the rubber pins would provide
variable pressure depending upon the compression of the resilent material.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013