Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness, the
claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is no
legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the invention." Para-Ordnance
Mfg.,Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37
USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995) cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822
(1996) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
First, we must determine the scope of the claims. We
find that the scope of independent claims 1 and 14 includes a
method of making an electrical feedthrough on a vacuum
enclosure where there is a ceramic feedthrough plate. The
feedthrough plate has several holes bored through it and pins
placed through these holes. The ceramic plate is brazed to
the vacuum enclosure and the pins are brazed to the ceramic
plate concurrently. These limitations are found in
independent claim 1,
a vacuum package enclosure . . . a pin bore through the
feedthrough plate . . . inserting each feedthrough pin
into it's respective pin bore . . . brazing the
feedthrough plate to the vacuum package enclosure
structure, the step of brazing the feedthrough plate to
the vacuum package enclosure structure to occur
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007