Appeal No. 1997-1186
Application No. 08/319,913
as a differential pressure sensor” (Answer, page 6). The
examiner has also employed Wamstad and Hynecek, which disclose
“a eutectic bond” and “a bonding surface”, respectively, in
order to overcome such deficiencies in Hingorany and
Ishibashi.
Appellant has argued that the alumina base in Tominaga is
not a mounting flag detachable from a leadframe as claimed and
he has maintained that “[t]he fact that Tominaga discloses a
hole in its alumina base does not lead one of ordinary skill
in the art to form an opening in the mounting surfaces of
Hingorany or Ishibashi. Hingorany and Ishibashi have no need
for such an opening, hence, the combination makes no sense”
(Brief,
pages 5-6). We agree with the appellant.
Given the differences in structures and functions between
appellant’s claimed invention and the devices of Hingorany and
Ishibashi, the examiner has not adequately explained, and we
cannot discern, how he has proposed to modify Hingorany and
Ishibashi in view of the teachings of Tominaga, Wamstad and
Hynecek to arrive at the claimed invention. In contrast to
the appellant’s device, Hingorany is directed to a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007