Appeal No. 2003-1908
Application No. 09/747,608
circuit component 48 having contacts or leads 48b engaged with
the terminals 44.
The examiner concedes that this assembly, and specifically
the terminals 44, do not meet the limitations in independent
claim 12, or the corresponding limitations in independent claim
18, relating to the electrical spring contact. To overcome this
deficiency, the examiner turns to Takeuchi and concludes that it
would have been obvious “to use the Takeuchi contact in the
Gronowicz housing . . . to allow connection with contact pins
having a varying diameter, as discussed in Takeuchi” (answer,
page 5). Gronowicz, however, does not indicate that connection
with contact pins or leads of varying size poses any sort of
problem. Simply put, the only suggestion for replacing
Gronowicz’s terminals 44, specifically designed to mate with the
leads 48b of a circuit component 48, with Takeuchi’s receptacle
1, specifically designed to mate with a cable conductor of a
coaxial cable, stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly
derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 12 and 18, and dependent
claims 13 through 17 and 19 through 25, as being unpatentable
over Gronowicz in view of Takeuchi.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007