Appeal No. 1996-0060
Application No. 08/033,596
is nothing in Shindo that anticipates terminal pins that
terminate at the exterior surface of the base.”
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding,
there is nothing in claims 1 and 2 that requires the
termination of terminal pins “approximately at said exterior
surface” of the metallic base. In fact, terminal pins are not
recited in claims 1 and 2. Claims 1 and 2 only require that
the conductive vias terminate “approximately at said exterior4
surface.” The vias 1b in Shindo do exactly that. Thus, in
the absence of other arguments by appellants, we will sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 3, and
the claims that depend therefrom, appellants argue (Brief,
page 13) that the base 1 in Shindo is made from iron or a
fermalloy, and that “[t]here is nothing in Shindo to teach or
suggest forming the base from copper, aluminum or alloys
thereof.” We agree with appellants’ argument. A mere
statement by the examiner (Answer, page 3) that such materials
4According to the McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary, a
“via” is nothing more than a through-hole in a layer of
material. A copy of the dictionary definition is attached.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007