Appeal No. 1997-0524
Application No. 08/495,699
housing shell or being expelled from the shell entirely. On
the other hand, LeMieux’s solution to the terminal assembly
protection problem is to construct a pin assembly using a
different material for the fusible section. The material used
for LeMieux’s fusible section has a lower melting point than
the material used for the seal between the pin and the housing
thus causing the fuse section to melt before the seal during a
high temperature condition. To the contrary, Bowsky’s
structural flange approach to addressing the terminal assembly
integrity problem obviates any need to be concerned with
relative melting points of seal and conductive pin.
We note that the Examiner utilized Bowsky as the primary
reference even though LeMieux, and not Bowsky, is concerned
with the relative difference of melting points of the seal and
pin. However, even using LeMieux as a starting point for
establishing a proposed obviousness combination, the rejection
would not result in the establishment of a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. In our view, the techniques
of Bowsky and LeMieux are so opposite in approach that any
motivation to combine them must have resulted from an improper
attempt to reconstruct Appellants’ invention in hindsight.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007