Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the references “because it would
enable the formation of the planar component mounting surface, all of which is in contact
with the printed circuit board, as taught by Ishizaki” [answer-page 5]. The
examiner also concludes that Stokes teaches a product comprising solder terminals being
soldered to a printed circuit board at a top surface thereof [identifying the abstract, lines
18-20, column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 14 and column 10, lines 55-58]
and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with Ishizaki
“because it would facilitate bonding of the butt terminals of the combination” [answer-page
5].
For their part, appellants argue that the bottom edge 38a in Fig. 7(b) of Ishizaki is in
a V-shape so that only the center line of the V contacts the board. We agree. Since this
center line is not a “surface” of the housing, Ishizaki cannot meet the claim limitation of the
housing surface facing the circuit board “all of which is flat, all of which is parallel to, and all
of which is in contact with the printed circuit board so as to form a planar component
mounting surface.” The housing “surface” in Ishizaki is not “flat,” as claimed.
The examiner argues this point by contending that “the scope of the claims is not
limited to a product not comprising only a small portion of the surface facing the printed
circuit board in contact with the printed circuit board, and the remaining upwardly sloping
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007