Appeal No. 1996-3194
Application 08/218,802
in the rejection of claim 1 [answer, page 4]. As we noted
above, the only force applying means of DeBalko which retain
the semiconductor components together are the contacts 42-44.
None of these contacts can be considered to be a spring tab as
recited in claims 2 and 3. Additionally, the claimed phrase
“wherein the first [second] spring tab and the first [second]
case part are of unitary construction” appears to require a
singular unitary construction as argued by appellants.
Although this view might seem inconsistent with our
consideration of the similar phrase of claim 1, it is
precisely because of our interpretation of claim 1 that we
reach this result for claims 2 and 3. The wherein phrases of
claims 2 and 3 would be superfluous and unnecessary if they
were interpreted to mean that each spring tab and each case
part were separately of unitary construction. Claim 1 already
accounts for that limitation. Therefore, we construe the
wherein clause of claims 1 and 2 as requiring a single unitary
construction of the spring tab and the case part. For these
reasons, we are of the view that Debalko does not anticipate
the invention of claims 2 and 3. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2 and 3 or of claims 4 and 5 which
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007