Appeal No. 1998-1086
Application No. 08/513,106
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that:
First, please refer to the embodiment of Figures
1, 2 and 3 in Charpentier. Specifically in Figure
2, it can be seen that leads 2A and 2B are
configured in such a manner that they cannot
possibly be brought together and fastened to one
another with a fastener. Thus, despite the so-
called “notorious” nature of screw fasteners as
shown by Brodzik et al., no screw or any other
fastener could fasten leads 2A and 2B together.
Thus, there is no motivation to combine Brodzik et
al. with Charpentier and even if there were such
motivation, the combination would not yield an
apparatus according to any of the appealed claims in
the present application.
Next, please refer to the embodiment of Figure
1D in Charpentier. In this embodiment, leads 2A and
2B each have a radius, because they are parts of
structures formed by rolling strips of metal. Due
to leads 2A and 2B having such radii, they are
clearly not intended to be bent (lead 2A downward
and lead 2B upward) to be fastened to one another.
Again, then, the so-called “notorious” nature of a
screw fastener in Brodzik et al. is not relevant.
There is no motivation to use such a fastener in
Charpentier.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The obviousness
rejection of claims 4, 6, 8 through 10, 16 and 18 through 20
is, therefore, reversed because the examiner has not presented
evidence or a convincing line of reasoning for using a
fastener to mechanically and electrically couple the terminals
2A and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007