Appeal No. 2001-1888
Application No. 08/741,449
that claims 1-20 are anticipated by Welsh. Additionally we note that only Welsh is
addressed in the Answer’s “Response to Argument” section.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that earlier rejections have been
withdrawn, and that the basis for the rejection of claims 13-16 and 18-20 over Welsh
has shifted from obviousness to anticipation. The sole rejection for our review is that
applied against all the claims as being anticipated by Welsh. See Ex parte Emm, 118
USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957) (rejection not referred to in the examiner’s answer is
assumed to have been withdrawn).
The statement of rejection against claims 1-20 (Answer at 3) points to structures
in Welsh that are deemed to correspond to the requirements of the claims. Appellants
argue (Brief at 9-10) that Welsh fails to disclose spring probes or spring probe
receptacles. Appellants contend that the recitations are terms of art that must be
interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meanings. Appellants further refer to
several U.S. patents and allege that those disclosures support appellants’ position.
The examiner does not address appellants’ reliance on the U.S. patents.
However, the examiner responds that “connector passage” 18 of Welsh “is equivalent
to the receptacle and this receptacle is clearly shown in figure # 6.” (Answer at 4.)
Figure 6 of Welsh, however, does not show a “receptacle,” but an electrical contact. In
any event, the examiner’s position may be based on the view expressed in the Final
Rejection, and quoted by appellants at page 9 of the Brief, that the term “spring probe
receptacle” is not given any patentable weight and is read as “any receptacle.”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007