than for Lok's claim I I (Paper 54 at 10). Lok argues that Boutros' claimed means includes latch
arms 16 for securely retaining the PCB and latch arms 17 for securely fastening the contact unit.
In contrast, the Lok PCB and the contact unit are securely retained by a single pair of lock arms
16. Only one set of lock arms is required, since the Lok PCB and the contact unit are soldered
together and are inserted together as a unitary piece as claimed in Lok claim 11. Since the
Boutros contact unit and PCB are not soldered together, but remain separate pieces, a second set
of latching arms is necessary to securely fasten the PCB. For these reasons, Lok has sufficiently
demonstrated that Boutros claim 32 does not anticipate Lok claim 11, or vice versa (Paper 54 at
10).
Lok has also sufficiently demonstrated that Lok's claim 11 with the "together with"
feature would not have been obvious in view of Boutros claims 32 or 33, or that Boutros claim
32 with the extra set of latches would not have been obvious in view of Lok claim 11 (Paper 54
at 11-12). Furthermore, Lok asserts that it is unaware of any prior art that would render Lok
claim I I obvious in view of Boutros claims 32 or 33 or vice versa (Paper 54 at 12).
Accordingly, Lok revised preliminary motion I is grante
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that the 11LOK'S REVISED MOTION NO. 1 (37 CFR 1.633(b))" is granted;
FURTHER ORDERED that the "JOINT MOTION I (no interference-in-fact regarding
countl)" is grante ;
FURTHER ORDERED that Boutros claims 34-37 be cancelle&;
The examiner shall enter the amendment filed by Boutros (Paper 57).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007