Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
portions of the surface facing the printed circuit board are not in contact with the printed
circuit board and are rounded and not flat or planar” [answer-page 9]. We disagree. The
claims do, in fact, require all of the housing surface facing the
printed circuit board to be “flat.” While one may say that the center line of the V in Ishizaki
is parallel to and in contact with the printed circuit board, it is unreasonable, in our view, to
contend that this center “line” constitutes a “surface,” as claimed. Since
Stokes is no help in overcoming this deficiency of Ishizaki, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Ishizaki and Stokes.
Moreover, while we understand the examiner’s creative argument that “a” width of
the planar mounting surface may comprise less than the total width and that “a” thickness”
of the solder terminals may comprise less than the total thickness, we do not agree with it.
It is our view that it is simply unreasonable, especially in view of the instant specification, to
treat the claim recitation of “a width of the planar mounting surface being greater than a
thickness of the solder terminals” as meaning anything other than that the total width of the
planar mounting surface is greater than the total thickness of the solder terminals.
We also agree with appellants that Fig. 7(b) of Ishizaki clearly shows that the solder
terminals extend through and beyond the bottom portion of the circuit board 39. Therefore,
Ishizaki cannot suggest the claimed limitation of solder terminals having “ends terminating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007