Appeal No. 2006-0513
Application No. 09/741,684
Indeed, Appellants have made an argument (Brief, page 5; Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3) that the gravitational pull on the solder
reflow and the initial solder placement will affect the shape of
the solder bond resulting in a product different from that of the
prior art. We find the record before us, however, to be totally
devoid of any evidence to support such a conclusion and, in the
absence of any such evidence, such a conclusion could only be
based on unwarranted speculation.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Albrecht, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 7,
as well as claims 8-11 not separately argued by Appellants, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 7-11 based on Ainslie, we sustain
this rejection as well. Appellants’ sole argument (Brief, page
6; Reply Brief, page 5) in response to this rejection is that
Ainslie’s suspension 40 does not have a “bonding pad” as claimed
but, instead, merely has circular openings in the lead
terminations 47. In support of this contention, Appellants refer
to a passage at column 4, lines 18-23 in Ainslie where the solder
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007