Ex Parte LICHTENWALTER et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2002-1782                                                               Page 4                
             Application No. 08/709,354                                                                               


                    Sakemi is directed to mounting electronic leads on a circuit board, and discloses                 
             a U-shaped mound of solder for receiving a component lead.  The arms of the solder                       
             mound are of constant width throughout their length, including the extremities thereof,                  
             as shown in Figure 2.  The cross section of the solder mound in each of the arms is                      
             rounded, as is apparent from Figure 3.  It is the examiner’s position that the rounded                   
             cross section of the solder mound constitutes “tapering” in the longitudinal direction                   
             away from the bridge along the surface of the printed circuit board (Answer, pages 3-5).                 
                    We do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion.  From our perspective, even                       
             conceding, arguendo, the rounded cross section of the solder arms disclosed in Sakemi                    
             to be “tapered,” they are not tapered “along the surface of a printed circuit board,” as                 
             required by the claim, but perpendicularly to the surface of the board.  We arrive at this               
             conclusion on the basis of the clear meaning of the language recited in the claim, which                 
             is confirmed by the illustration of this feature of the invention in Figure 4E of the                    
             appellants’ drawing.                                                                                     
                    Since Sakemi fails to disclose or teach this step of claim 1, we will not sustain                 
             the rejection.  Nor, it follows, will we sustain the like rejection of claims 2-4, which                 
             depend from claim 1.                                                                                     
                    Independent claim 21 also contains the limitation regarding the orientation of the                
             taper, and therefore we also will not sustain the rejection of this claim.                               
                                                   CONCLUSION                                                         








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007