Appeal No. 2004-0620 Page 8
Application No. 09/698,898
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 11-14) that the applied prior art does not suggest
the claimed subject matter. We agree. In that regard, while Lin '558 does teach an
electrical connector having a terminal 5' including an arcuate plate 53', it is our opinion
that Lin '558 would not have taught or suggested modifying the terminal contact end 36
of intermediate conductive element 35 of Farnworth to have an arcuate plate. There is
no motivation or suggestion in the applied prior art for one skilled in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Farnworth's terminal contact end 36 to include
an arcuate plate. The disparate nature of the connectors of Farnworth and Lin '558
provide no suggestion for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have modified Farnworth to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Lin '558
provides the arcuate plate to maintain a solder ball in position. However, there is no
evidence that Farnworth utilized a solder ball to connect the terminal contact end 36 to
the corresponding terminal on the substrate. As such, there is no motivation, teaching
or suggestion in the applied prior art to have modified Farnworth to arrive at the claimed
subject matter.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14
to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007