Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
at and even with the planar component mounting surface...” While the examiner
recognizes this, Stokes is relied on for a teaching of the equivalency of
through hole terminals and butt terminals and concludes that the through hole terminals of
Ishizaki may obviously be butt terminals. The examiner states that the combination of
Ishizaki and Stokes would have been made “to facilitate mounting,” but we find nothing
to support such an argument and no cogent reason why the skilled artisan would have
substituted butt terminals for the through hole terminals disclosed by Ishizaki.
For at least the reasons supra, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ishizaki and Stokes.
The examiner makes an alternative rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on the addition of Osamu to the combination of Ishizaki and Stokes.
We will not sustain this alternative rejection since, in our view, Osamu does not
provide for the deficiencies noted supra with regard to Ishizaki and Stokes. More
particularly, the examiner relies on Osamu to provide for a teaching of “a width of the
planar mounting surface being greater than a thickness of the solder terminals,” as
claimed, even if our interpretation of this claim language, supra, is accepted.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the examiner’s argument has merit, and Osamu
does teach the width of a planar mounting surface to be greater than a thickness of the
solder terminals, this still does not provide for the claim limitation of the solder terminals
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007