Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 13
Application No. 08/454,898
For the reasons stated above, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 4, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Biechler.
THE § 103 REJECTIONS
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12, 13,
15, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Biechler, Piorunneck and Baechtle. Initially we
note that, since lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness
(see In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571
(CCPA 1982)), the § 103 rejection of these claims is
sustainable based on the teachings of Biechler alone.
Moreover, to the extent that the beam portions 82,94 and solder
tails 88 of Biechler might be considered not to have the
capability of providing a spring force in the claimed manner,
we share the examiner's view that it would have been obvious to
make solder tails 88 and beam portions resilient in order to
apply a spring force as taught by Baechtle in column 2, lines
55-66 and column 6, lines 45-51. The examiner has additionally
relied on Piorunneck for a teaching of ground contacts. While
we agree with the examiner that Piorunneck provides such a
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007