Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
We appreciate that the contact terminal 34 of Frantz,
modified to incorporate both preload tabs and a protruding
contact portion might very well result in a contact arm having a
free end portion located generally between a bowed portion of the
spring contact arm and a terminal base portion, as now claimed.
We agree with appellants, however, that it would not have been
obvious to substitute a protruding contacting portion like that
disclosed in Lytle at bight portion 38 for the trap-like beam
portion 44 of Frantz. As pointed out by appellants on pages 14-
15 of the brief, “Frantz teaches using a wire trap terminal. By
bending the trapping free end of the Frantz terminal, as in the
claimed invention, the Frantz terminal would no longer be able to
‘trap’ the wire.” We agree. In view of the fact that the
examiner’s proposed modification would render the apparatus of
Frantz unsuitable for its intended purpose of locking the
conductor in place (column 2, lines 6-12; column 4, lines 37-42),
it cannot be said that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Ex parte Rosenfeld, 130 USPQ 113, 115
(Bd. App. 1961). It follows that we cannot sustain the standing
rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Frantz in view of Lytle.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007