Appeal No. 97-1042
Application No. 07/969,541
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 10, 13
through 15 and 18 through 20.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 4) that “Vancelette is not
believed to show or make obvious . . . moving the
semiconductor device in one direction . . . past the plurality
of the wiping contacts . . . wherein at least one wiping
contacts [sic, contact] makes electrical contact to a side of
one of the leads during the moving of the semiconductor
device, as applicants claim.” Appellants and the examiner
agree (Brief, page 4; Answer, page 4; Supplemental Answer,
page 2) that cooperative measurement contacts 70 and 72 in
Vancelette perform a “static measurement” (column 4, lines 35
through 51) on leads L of components C (Figures 1 and 6
through 9). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection is
reversed because of the lack of any movement between the leads
L and the measurement contacts 70 and 72 when they are in
electrical contact.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007