Appeal No. 97-1400
Application 08/394,409
After careful review of the basic combination of
Prochaska and Rozmus, we must agree with appellant (brief,
pages 4-7) that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive
in the applied references which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to their combination as posited by the examiner
so as to arrive at the particular form of electrical contact as
claimed in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 on appeal.
Moreover, while the examiner is of the view that Rozmus, in
Figure 2, discloses a compliant pin section with an extreme upper
end having a radius of curvature "which appears to be at least
25% of thickness [sic] of the compliant section as seen in side
elevation view" (final rejection, page 3), we share appellant's
view that the rounded ends of the elongated connector tail (1)
and the wire wrap tail (2) seen in Figure 2 of Rozmus are far
removed from the compliant section (3) of the contact pin therein
and form no part thereof, and also that the radius of curvature
of the extreme ends of these tails would appear to be much
smaller than the 25% of the contact thickness that the examiner
sees therein.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007