Appeal No. 96-0616
Application 08/036,249
Claim 8 is drawn to the combination of elements set forth
above in the discussion of rejection (1) and, in addition,
specifies that the electronic components are hybrid ICs. It
is the examiner's position (answer, page 5) that it would have
been obvious to apply Kuwahara's teaching to hybrid ICs.
Appellant argues (reply brief, pages 5 and 6) that there
is no motivation in the art to apply Kuwahara's teaching to
hybrid ICs because hybrid ICs have more than four leads and,
even if it were obvious to apply Kuwahara's teaching to hybrid
ICs, there would have been no motivation to arrive at the
specific arrangement recited in claim 8.
We disagree. Kuwahara clearly teaches that an electronic
part having three or four leads is held more securely between
a strip of backing paper and adhesive tape, if the outermost
leads of the lead group are made longer than the interior
leads and the
adhesive tape is applied to the backing paper with the
outermost leads held therebetween. While appellant argues
that all hybrid ICs have more than four leads, there is no
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007