Appeal No. 2001-1888
Application No. 08/741,449
compliant pin 32 of Welsh is “fitted within” and protrudes from an opening in passage
18 (Fig. 2), we do not see how the remainder of the claim may be met by the reference.
The recitation regarding “adapted to receive” a spring probe, in isolation, might
require no more than a space (e.g, a cylindrical opening) suitable to receive a spring
probe. However, anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the
claim. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As shown in Figure 2 of Welsh,
when the compliant pin of contact 26 protrudes from an opening of passage 18, the
remainder of the contact fills substantially all of passage 18. Finding that passage 18 is
“adapted to receive” a spring probe at one end while the compliant pin protrudes from
the passage at an opposite end would be based on speculation, at best.
We are thus persuaded by appellants that Welsh fails to disclose each and every
element of the claimed invention respectively set forth by independent claims 1, 9, and
13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Welsh.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007