Appeal No. 2003-0053
Application No. 09/142,464
Appellant argues that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention. (See brief at pages 4-6.) Appellant argues that
Ogiso teaches a “V” shaped connection and that the examiner’s reliance upon
Pennybacker to teach and suggest a “U” shaped connection is misplaced, and
Pennybacker does not provide a motivation to modify the “V” in Ogiso to a substantially
“U” shaped connection since the “V” shaped connection is used by Ogiso to limit the
positioning of the bump 40 relative to the connection end 25c. (See brief at page 6.)
Appellant argues that Pennybacker does not provide the required motivation to modify
Ogiso. Appellant argues that Pennybacker does not teach or suggest that each of the
leads being provided with a flat leading end portion having a substantially U-shaped
edge which opens towards a leading edge of the leads as recited in the language of
independent claim 1. (See brief at pages 6-7.) Appellant argues that the “V” shaped
end of Ogiso would destroy of positioning function of the “V” shape in Ogiso. (See reply
brief at page 2-3.) Therefore, appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the “V” shape with a “U” shape since the “U”
shaped end would allow movement which would not be conducive to positioning.
The examiner maintains at page 3 of the answer that selection from any known
lead end would have been obvious to skilled artisans. While the examiner maintains
that any known shape end may be used, the examiner does not provide any motivation
for modifying the end of Ogiso. While we agree that the shape of the end may be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007