Appeal No. 1998-0923
Application No. 08/514,718
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent apparatus claim 1, Appellants have made several
arguments in response. The primary argument in the Briefs,
however, centers on the lack of disclosure of the claimed lead
frame structure, as set forth in the final sub-paragraph of
appealed claim 1, in Morimoto, the primary reference relied
upon by the Examiner for this feature.
After careful review of the Morimoto reference, as well
as the other applied prior art, in light of the arguments of
record, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as
stated in the Briefs. Our interpretation of the disclosure of
Morimoto coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., no
disclosure of any lead frame structure is provided, let alone
in the specific structural relationship with the cathode
substrate as claimed. We are at a loss as to what structure
of Morimoto could be construed to correspond to the
Appellants’ claimed lead frame structure and we find no
enlightenment on this issue from the Examiner’s reasoning in
the Answers.
We do note that the Examiner, at page of 2 of the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (paper no. 28, mailed October
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007