Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
the bowed portion of the spring contact arm and the terminal
base.” Independent claim 16 contains similar language. The
examiner concedes that the contact terminal 34 of Frantz does not
meet this claim limitation. Nevertheless, the examiner has taken
the position that it would have been obvious “to provide . . .
preloading terminal free end portion[s] in Frantz, to provide
increased retention force as taught by Lytle” (answer, page 3).
The “Response to Argument” section of the answer indicates that
the examiner’s proposed modification of the terminals of Frantz’s
includes not only incorporation of preload tabs therein, but also
a further modification of terminals 34 of Frantz so that
protruding contact portions similar to Lytle’s bight portions 38
are substituted for the trap-like beam portions 44 of Frantz. In
this regard, see pages 4-5 of the answer, wherein the examiner
states:
It should be noted that both Frantz and Lytle accept
mating terminals in a longitudinal insertion direction
forming a resilient grip on the terminal. Elements
generally at 40, 42, 16 of Lytle are clearly analogous
to those of France [sic, Frantz] (i.e. 44, 72), with
Lytle additionally suggesting to one of average skill
that a preloaded terminal end (Fig. 4 of Lytle) with a
protruding contacting portion may clearly be a
substitute for a pinching or trapping resilient
terminal of the type shown at 44, 72 of Frantz.
[Emphasis added.]
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007