Appeal No. 1996-3194
Application 08/218,802
respectively depend from claims 3 and 2.
With respect to dependent claim 6, appellants argue
that semiconductor components 34 and 37 of DeBalko are not
between plates 42 and 43 as would be required by the claim
[brief, page 9]. This argument is not persuasive. The
plurality of semiconductor components of claim 1 can be read
on only components 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38 of DeBalko. Since
these semiconductor components are situated between plates 42
and 43 of DeBalko, claim 6 can be read on the disclosure of
DeBalko. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. It
should be noted that the claimed plates cannot be read on
conductors 21-27
as proposed by the examiner because these conductors do not
form part of the semiconductor assembly within housing 31.
With respect to dependent claim 7, appellants
argue that only one component (surge protector 38) is between
the force means 44 and the plates 42 and 43 of DeBalko and not
a plurality of components as claimed [brief, page 9]. We
agree. As we noted above, only clamp 44 of Debalko satisfies
the force applying means of independent claim 1. That being
the case, we agree with appellants that the clamp 44 of
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007