Appeal No. 95-4927
Serial No. 08/216,772
However, the cited definition of "project" does not support
appellants’ narrow interpretation of the term "lead," because
that term is broad enough to encompass a lead having a first
portion projecting from (and thus external to) the insulating
body and a second portion contained within (and thus internal
to) the insulating body. As the examiner correctly notes, the
claim does not specify that the bends are in the lead portions
which are external to the insulating body (Answer at 5).6
Appellants’ final argument is that Mizuguchi "does not
recognize the problem solved by the currently claimed
invention" (Brief at 8). This argument overlooks the fact
that the prior art relied on in support of a rejection need
not suggest a solution to the particular problem addressed by
the applicant. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d
1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S.
904 (1991).
We note appellants do not alternatively argue that in the device6
resulting from the combination of their prior art Figure 1 device, Mizuguchi,
and Yasui, the length of the insulated coating on the alternate leads will not
be long enough to ensure that the distance between all uninsulated portions of
any pair of leads will always be greater than the selected distance value
between their respective tip ends, as required by the claim.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007