Appeal No. 96-3842
Application 08/489,696
defines first and second attachment members which are capable
of functioning in the manner set forth in appellants’ claim
13. For these reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Sterling. Since
claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 13, it follows from the
foregoing that we will also not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Sterling.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new ground of rejection against claims 9 and 19
on appeal.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Scheingold. The dual
beam contact (14), seen best in Figures 2 and 4 of Scheingold,
includes a first contact beam (62b) having a contact portion
(68) positioned on a first side of a dividing element (12)
through an aperture (40) to make a connection to a first
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007