Appeal No. 2002-0620
Application No. 08/921,943
we find that the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of
providing a prima facie case of anticipation and the 35 U.S.C. §
102 rejection of claims 22-24 and 27 over Dingenotto cannot be
sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 25
and 26, we note that the Examiner further relies on Sakuraoka for
teaching the relative position of the reentrant section in
relation to the lower surface of the deformable section (answer,
page 4). Sakuraoka relates to a press-fit pin having a press-fit
area in the form of a bridge between beams 41 and 42 (Figure 1
and pages 15-20). However, since there is no disclosure in the
reference relating to opposite sidewalls being generally parallel
to each other, the deficiencies of Dingenotto as discussed above
with respect to claims 22-24 and 27 cannot be overcome.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 25 and 26 over Dingenotto and Sakuraoka.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007