Appeal No. 1999-1121
Application No. 08/752,865
the wire loops, but nevertheless conclude (brief, page 4)
that “[o]nly the wire portion 1 can be said to separate
Krueger’s solder elements.” Appellants’ argument to the
contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 7) that the flux on each of the solder
balls functions to separate the two solder balls from
each other.
Based upon the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 3 and 6 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 is
sustained pro forma because appellants have not presented
any arguments to refute the conclusion of obviousness
reached by the examiner (answer, page 4).
When claim 4 is considered as a whole, we find that
it requires an end protruding beyond the solder ball that
is suitable for insertion through a substrate. Inasmuch
as the ends of the wire 1 in Krueger have been bent into
loops, we find it hard to believe that the skilled
artisan after considering the teachings of Fukuhara would
attempt to put ends onto the wire 1 so that they would
extend beyond the loops. In short, we agree with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007