Appeal No. 2003-2098 Page 21
Application No. 09/833,978
We do not agree with the examiner's comment (answer, pp. 5-6) that the claimed
arrangement "will short out the circuit." In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the claimed first electrically conductive contact4 contains two
electrically isolated contact surfaces thus preventing any shorting out of the circuit.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7
to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Osika and
Lockard is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman in view of Osika and Lockard is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 4 and 6 to 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10
and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
4 Contact 46 shown in the appellant's Figure 3.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007