Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
having “ends terminating at and even with the planar component mounting surface...” And,
for the reasons supra, the combination of Ishizaki and Stokes does not make this claimed
subject matter obvious.
Moreover, 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
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 explained supra, and
Osamu does not clearly provide for this deficiency. As seen in Osamu, in Figure 2, it is
unclear what the bottom of resin mold 111 looks like, or whether it is a flat surface at all.
Looking at Figures 1 and 5, the top of the resin mold appears to be made up of angled
surfaces, with an uppermost surface being flat but not the same width as the overall width
of the resin mold. One might say that this thinner
surface is still a flat surface, as claimed. However, we would need to speculate in order
to determine that the bottom of the resin mold contacting the substrate is also such a flat
surface. It is not clear from Osamu’s disclosure. Moreover, even if we determined that
Osamu disclosed such a surface, Osamu’s lead terminals do not stop at the surface of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007