Ex parte VANHOUTTE - Page 2




            Appeal No. 1999-1121                                                      
            Application No. 08/752,865                                                


                 The disclosed invention relates to an electrically                   
            conductive wire that has first and second solder balls                    
            fixed on the wire.  The two solder balls are separated by                 
            flux fixed on the wire.                                                   
                 Claim 3 is the only independent claim on appeal, and                 
            it reads as follows:                                                      
                 3.   An apparatus comprising                                         
            a.   an electrically conductive wire;                                     
                 b.   a first solder ball fixed on said wire;                         
                 c.   a second solder ball fixed on said wire,                        
                      said second ball being distinct from                            
                      said first ball; and                                            
                d.   flux fixed on said wire and separating                          
                      said first and second solder balls.                             
                 The references relied on by the examiner are:                        
            Krueger             3,889,364            Jun. 17, 1975                    
            Siden               3,925,596                 Dec.  9, 1975               
            Gurevich et al. (Gurevich) 5,298,877          Mar. 29, 1994               
            Fukuhara                 1 052 475            Apr. 10, 1979               
            (Published Canadian Patent Application)                                   
                 Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                      
            102(b) as being anticipated by Krueger.                                   
                 Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                  
            being unpatentable over Krueger in view of Gurevich.                      

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007