Appeal No. 1996-0060
Application No. 08/033,596
are “very well known in the art” cannot take the place of
evidence or a convincing line of reasoning by the examiner
that demonstrates that such a conclusion is correct. In
short, the obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 8, 10
through 13, 15 through 19, 21, 23 and 24 is reversed because
the examiner has not made a prima facie showing of
obviousness.
Based upon the foregoing reversal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 4, it follows that the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 9 must be reversed because claim 9 depends
from claim 4 (Brief, page 10).
As indicated supra, appellants argue that none of the
terminal pins in the applied references terminate
“approximately at said exterior surface” of a metallic
base/cover. We agree. The terminal pins 3 in Shindo, the
terminal pins 20 in McShane and the terminals pins 10 in
Yamamoto all terminate well beyond the “exterior surface” of
any base or cover. The broadness of the claim language
notwithstanding (Answer, page 6), the applied references
neither teach nor would they have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art to terminate the terminal pins at the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007