Appeal No. 2006-1467 Page 11
Application No. 10/302,271
expectation of success for reasons expressed above and in the
answer. Thus, we affirm the examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1-3.
Rejection of Claims 4 and 5
Appellants do not argue the claims subjected to this
rejection separately. Thus, we select claim 4 as the 2
representative claim on which we decide this appeal as to this
ground of rejection.
As with the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 discussed
above, appellants’ arguments primarily hinge on the proposition
that the combined teachings of Sluzewski and Kirkland would not
have taught or suggested directing a hot air gun at a solder ball
and turning the hot air gun on during the rework process of
Sluzewski. For reasons discussed above and in the answer, we3
disagree with that argument. It follows that we shall also
2Representative claim 4 (as well as claim 5) is broader than
claim 1 for reasons as generally set forth by the examiner at
page 9 of the answer.
3There is no genuine dispute as to the examiner’s
determination that Sluzewski discloses or suggests a rework
process including the removal of a magnetic head transducer
(slider) from connection with an electrical conductor (suspension
including circuitry) via the melting of a solder ball. The
solder ball is used to bind those elements together. However,
Sluzewski does not disclose a particular manner of heating the
solder ball to a melting temperature.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007