Appeal No. 96-3842
Application 08/489,696
(26) which extends through an aperture of the “dividing
element” (i.e., between the block (14) and the retainer strip
(33)) and, via the contact portions on arms (28) and (30),
makes a connection on opposite sides of the dividing element.
Thus, since the spring contact member of either
Figures 1-6 of Sterling or Figure 10 of Sterling includes all
of the claimed structure of the “dual beam contact” set forth
in appellants’ claim 9 on appeal, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Sterling. Since the patentability of dependent claims 12
and 19 has not been separately argued by appellants, it
follows that these claims will fall with claim 9 from which
they depend.
Looking next at independent claim 13 on appeal, we
note that this claim differs from claim 9 in that it requires
the contact to include a first contact beam having “a distal
end
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007