Appeal 2007-0462
Application 09/519,547
We find independent claim 1 does not set forth the specific orientation of the
pin or the number of pins. Therefore, we find that Lazzery alone teaches all
of the limitations of independent claim 1.
Turning to the combination of Lazzery and Lightbody as applied by
the Examiner, the Examiner maintains that each of the resilient contacts of
Lazzery is equivalent to one contact pin in the test system of Lightbody and
that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention to have replaced the resilient connection of Lazzery with the
resilient pins taught by Lightbody for connection between two substrates
(Answer 7). We find the reasoning of the Examiner to be reasonable in light
of the teachings of Lazzery and Lightbody.
Appellants argue that the conductor of Lazzery is more complex than
Appellants’ connection pin and Lazzery lacks the advantage of added
contact reliability from variable-pressure metal-to-metal contact (Br. 4). We
do not find support in the express language of independent claim 1 for these
arguments. Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the pins of Lazzery and the pins of Lightbody
function in substantially different ways and that it would not have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have replaced
one pin with the other pin (Br. 5-6). While we agree with Appellants that
the end application of the two inventions of Lazzery and Lightbody are not
the same, it is the aspect of forming a connection between two substrates
which is being suggested by Lightbody. Here, we find that the Examiner’s
rationale is sufficiently well reasoned in light of the teaching of Lightbody
that the structure of the array need not be set and can be varied “as the needs
of the customer dictate” (col. 3. ll. 16-21) and that the disclosed array is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013