Appeal No. 96-3842
Application 08/489,696
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of
independ- ent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being antic-
ipated by Sterling, we share the examiner’s view that the dual
beam contact (12) of Sterling (e.g., that seen in Figures 1-6,
or that seen in
Figure 10) includes a first contact beam (28) having a contact
portion “adapted to be” positioned on a first side of a divid-
ing element through an aperture to make a connection to a
first
contact element on said first side of the dividing element; an
elbow portion (26) integrally coupled to the first contact
beam, with said elbow portion being “adapted to” extend
through an aperture in a dividing element; a second contact
beam (30) integrally coupled to the elbow portion, said second
contact beam having a contact portion “adapted to” make a
connection to a second contact element on a second side of the
dividing element; and an attachment member (at the portion of
26 contacted by the retainer strip 33 of Sterling Figures 1-6,
or at 46 in Figure 10 of Sterling) integrally associated with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007