Appeal No. 97-2481
Application No. 08/480,964
Anderson, and thus, that the claimed subject matter would have
been prima facie obvious.4
Appellant argues that "Anderson merely suggests the
notoriously well known concept of shaping corresponding male and
female contact sockets so that they fit together but do not fit
into adjacent sockets" (brief, page 12). This is somewhat
inaccurate, as the portions of Anderson’s male and female
contacts which fit together are not of different shapes; note
page 1, col. 2, lines 30 to 34. In the Anderson apparatus, it is
only the parts of the contacts which are within the insulating
barrels 22, 24 which are of non-circular shapes (see page 2,
col. 1, lines 32 to 39). The alignment of Anderson’s male and
female contacts is by means of recess 18 and lip 20 (page 1,
col. 2, lines 43 to 52).
Appellant also contends that Anderson is not concerned with
improving a mating connection within the bore, improving
electrical characteristics, or preventing contamination by
overmolding material (brief, page 12). While this may be, it is
settled that "[a]s long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
4 As discussed previously, this determination is made in
light of the fact that modification of the APA in view of
Anderson would yield a structure corresponding to that disclosed
in appellant’s Fig. 2.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007