Appeal No. 1999-0598
Application No. 08/866,064
substrate but are extended through the surface. The only reference which could possibly
suggest the solder terminals, as claimed (i.e., “terminating at and even with the planar
component mounting surface of the bottom of the housing”) would be Stokes. Yet,
notwithstanding the examiner’s explanation that Stokes teaches that
stopping the terminals at the surface of the circuit board or extending the terminals through
the circuit board are obvious alternatives, we find no reason for the skilled
artisan to have modified either Ishizaki or Osamu so as to omit the through holes therein
and use, in their place, solder terminals which terminate at and even with the planar
component mounting surface of the bottom of the housing.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of independent claims 8 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, we also will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 9-13 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 since the references to Craft and Waitl, employed against varying claims
in one capacity or another, do not provide for the deficiencies of the primary references.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007