0
Boutros claim 29, when property interpreted, do not interfere.
The parties argue that the "means" for guiding and supporting the circuit board recited in
Lok claim 13 and Boutros claim 29 are different. Boutros' means for guiding and supporting,
the parties argue, includes latch arms 16 and printed circuit board (PCB) 3 notches 32 (Paper 58
at 6 and 8). The parties further submit that the Lok means for guiding and supporting the circuit
board includes lock arms 16, but does not include notches in the PCB. Instead, the Lok locking
arms 16 engage with contact unit 2 locking projections 24, but do not in any way engage with the
PCB. Indeed, the Lok PCB does not have notches like those shown in the Boutros PCB (Boutros
Fig. I PCB 3 and Lok Fig. I PCB 3).
Thus, the joint preliminary motion sets forth the differences between Boutros claim 29
and Lok claim 13 and sufficiently demonstrates that Lok claim 13, without the PCB notches as
part of the claimed means, does not anticipate Boutros claim 29 that includes notches on the PCB
as part of the means. The parties submit that Boutros claim 29 would not have been obvious
given Lok claim 13 and that the parties are unaware of any prior art that would render Boutros
claim 29 obvious in view of Lok claim 13 (Paper 58 at 6 and 9).
The parties also compare Lok claim I with Boutros claim 29. As stated above, the parties
take the position that the means for guiding and supporting claimed in Boutros claim 29 includes
latch arms 16 and notches 32. Lok claim I does not recite notches in the claimed PCB.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the parties, Lok claim I recites that the "the printed circuit board
together with the contact unit is slidably received in the slot." The parties refer to this feature as
the "together with" feature. Boutros claim 29 not only fails to recite the "together with" feature,
but provides no limitation as to how the PCB and the contact unit are inserted into the plug.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007