Appeal No. 2006-1467 Page 6
Application No. 10/302,271
to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a fixture for
holding the gimbal assembly of Sluzewski during a rework process
given the teachings of Kolesar. See pages 3-11 of the answer.
We agree.
Appellants maintain that the combined teachings of the
applied references do not suggest directing a hot air gun to an
electrical connection of a head gimbal assembly and turning the
hot air gun on to melt the solder ball. In this regard,
appellants argue that Kirkland’s nozzle is not a hot air gun and
does not direct hot air to the solder balls (66, Figure 4).
Thus, appellants contend that the hot air supplying nozzle
arrangement of Kirkland would not teach or suggest directing a
hot air gun at a solder ball of an electrical connection.
This argument is not persuasive of any reversible error in
the examiner’s rejection. Regarding this argued limitation, we
note that representative claim 4 does not require use of a
particular hot air gun construction. Indeed, a review of
appellants’ specification reveals a lack of any disclosure as to
the type or kind of hot air gun construction employed by
appellants in their rework method. Accordingly, we interpret the
claimed “hot air gun” to encompass any structure that is capable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007