Appeal No. 1999-0439
Application 08/652,908
Appellants argue that faceplate 36 of Thompson is
intended to be removable from clip 21 so that there is no
suggestion in Thompson of making the faceplate 36 integral
with clips 21 and 22. Appellants also argue that if the
faceplate was integral with the clips in Thompson, the
receptacle could not be removed which would destroy the
accessibility sought by Thompson. Finally, appellants argue
that the examiner’s reliance on Howard is misplaced under the
facts of this case [brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner disagrees
with each of these arguments [answer, pages 9-10].
We agree with the position argued by appellants.
Although Thompson would appear to be substantially unrelated
to the invention disclosed by appellants, it is clear that the
examiner has interpreted claim 2 so broadly that the examiner
finds the invention as recited in claim 2 to be substantially
met by Thompson. Appellants and the examiner have permitted
the disposition of this case to be decided on the single
question of whether it would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to make the latching portion 21 of
Thompson integral with the body portion 20,36.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007