Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
In addition, independent claim 16 calls for the spring
contact arm to have a portion projecting through the side opening
in the housing “for engagement by a conductor on an appropriate
mating contact member outside the housing” (emphasis added). The
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, where
the combining teachings of Frantz and Lytle disclose, suggest or
infer such an arrangement. This constitutes an additional reason
necessitating reversal of the standing rejection of claim 16.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007