Appeal No. 2004-0620 Page 5
Application No. 09/698,898
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 11 to 13
In the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 11 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Farnworth in view of Lin '348 (answer, pp. 4-5), the examiner
(1) set forth that Farnworth discloses a lead (36, Fig. 5b) for attaching an electronic
device (10) to a substrate (40), comprising a first lead portion (38) adapted to abut a
side of the device, and a second lead portion (36) having a first surface adapted to
attach to the substrate and having a second surface opposing the first surface; (2) set
forth that Lin '348 discloses a lead comprising a second lead portion (53, Figure 3)
including an arcuate structure extending from the second lead portion; (3) ascertained1
that Farnworth does not disclose the second lead portion including an arcuate structure
extending from the second lead portion; and (4) concluded that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the second lead portion of Farnworth to
include an arcuate structure extending from the second lead portion to accommodate a
solder ball to improve the electrical connection between the lead and the electrical
contact on the substrate as taught by Lin '348 (column 2, lines 40-45).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-10) that the applied prior art does not suggest
the claimed subject matter. We agree. In that regard, while Lin '348 does teach an
1 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007