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. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007