Appeal 2006-2910
Application 10/226,586
(Reply Br. 5) are not persuasive as the specific features argued to be
required by the term “axially adjustable” are not recited in the claims.
Therefore, based on the disclosure of Szwec and our findings above,
we find that Szwec prima facie anticipates claims 1 and 27. Accordingly,
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Szwec.
B. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We also disagree with Appellants’ arguments that Lindahl and
Nguyen may not be properly combined (Br. 12-15). As stated by the
Examiner (Answer 4), the feed thru portion of Lindahl is shown to be as
thick as the package wall since the flat connector portion 12 is clearly
depicted to have the same length as the package wall thickness.
Additionally, Nguyen describes such arrangement and the dimensions
associated with the feed thru connector with more specificity and a
description of its benefits for connection to the substrate.
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ assertion (Br. 15) that there is
nothing in Lindahl to indicate a need for “good electrical connection” and
justify the modification by Nguyen, we observe that the teachings of Nguyen
to be merely cumulative since Lindahl shows the claimed feed thru portion
as thick as the package wall. Additionally, the details of the feed thru
portion, as described by Nguyen, merely provide more precise description
for the fitting and uniform impedance (col. 2, ll. 39-49).
The feed thru portion disclosed in Lindahl and Nguyen, as asserted by
the Examiner (Answer 9), is shown to have smooth surface for being
slideable within the borehole. We are not convinced by Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 18) that Lindahl’s and Nguyen’s connectors are not slideable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013