Appeal No. 1997-1336
Application 08/267,433
Appellant and the examiner do not disagree on what is
specifically disclosed by Yamane and Bougger. Appellant
argues that there is no suggestion to replace the axial leads
16 of Bougger with a wire fuse as claimed. Appellant also
argues that the applied prior art would have suggested to the
artisan that the fuse element of a fused, surface mounting
type electronic component must be encapsulated by an
insulating material [brief, pages 13-14].
It should be noted that the examiner does not propose
to replace Bougger’s axial leads with a fuse wire. Rather,
the examiner proposes to make the electrical connection
between a cathode lead and a fuse element of a surface
mounting type capacitor occur at the face of a resin package
which is where the electrical connection in Bougger is made.
Thus, the examiner in considering the scope of claim 1 has
considered the obviousness of extending the contact point
between fuse element 31 and cathode terminal 23 of Yamane to
the edge of resin package 51 to make an edge electrical
contact as taught by Bougger.
We agree with the examiner that the artisan would have
appreciated the obviousness of making the electrical
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007