Appeal No. 2001-1618
Application No. 08/960,565
shape memory metal. Nonetheless, the examiner asserts (Answer,
page 4) that it would have been obvious to use a shape memory
metal because "most of spring contact, probe contact are
fabricated from one of a shape memory metal for permitting an
increase in the deflections of the probes." The examiner further
contends (Answer, page 4) that "it appears that the shape memory
metal (4) which is an alloy of Nickel and one of titanium or
cobalt having 42 to 48% by weight titanium, balance nickel would
have been an obvious modification," that "it would have been well
known" to separate spring contacts from each other in an array
"by a material selected from the group consisting of invar,
silicon or glass ceramic which has coefficient of thermal
expansion substantially close to the device under test or burn-
in," and that "it would have been obvious that the means to array
the spring contacts (4) in a test board is a carrier." The
examiner provides no objective evidence to support any of the
assertions of obviousness. The examiner merely makes
conclusionary statements. In accordance with Lee, this is
insufficient for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
22 over Brandt.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007