Appeal No. 97-2611
Application 08/299,101
The basis of the rejection is set forth on page 3 of
the examiner's answer as follows:
The admitted prior art discloses
ground terminal 2 having a screw insertion
hole 2e and leads 2b,c,d. Mroz and Hosking
(Figure 10) show a metal element having a
screw insertion hole and projections on a
peripheral edge of the hole. It thus would
have been obvious to provide the admitted
prior art terminal with projections on the
peripheral edge of its hole, as taught by
either Mroz or Hosking, to make better
engagement with chassis 3.
Spencer et al discloses leads 72 having
obliquely slanted sides, and to provide the
terminal body of the ground terminal with
obliquely slanted edges thus would have
been obvious, to prevent damage to the
circuit board.
Alternatively, note that instant Figure
3 also shows the terminal body as having an
obliquely extending surface at the extreme
upper right. To form the terminal body
with an obliquely extending surface at the
left side as well thus would have been an
obvious matter of design, to achieve the
same benefits as the one at the upper
right, namely, the elimination of a square
corner where stress concentrations occur.
Since both of the independent claims, 1 and 6, and
therefore all of the claims, call for the terminal body to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007