Appeal No. 1997-1336
Application 08/267,433
of the resin package. The examiner cites Breen for teaching a
connection in which the ends of a fuse are flush with the
enclosing package [final rejection, page 5]. Appellant argues
that Breen does not disclose a fuse element which has one end
connected to an electronic component and another end flush
with a resin package [brief, page 17]. This argument is not
persuasive because Yamane is relied on for the teaching of
connecting a fuse element between an electronic component and
a cathode terminal. Breen is relied on only to show that an
electrical connection can be made to a fuse by connecting it
at the flush surface of an enclosing package. When we
consider the scope of claim 8, we agree with the examiner that
the invention as set forth therein would have been obvious to
the artisan in view of the teachings of Yamane, Bougger and
Breen. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 11
as proposed by the examiner.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-11 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007