Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 3
Application No. 08/454,898
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21 and 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Biechler.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21 and 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over either
Biechler or Yohn "either one" in view of Piorunneck and
Baechtle.
The rejections are explained on pages 3-6 of the answer.
The arguments of the appellants and examiner in support of
their respective positions may be found on pages 6-26 of the
brief and page 6 of the answer.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology appearing in the claims. In independent claim
1, subparagraph b) iii), we interpret "wherein the beam portion
. . . by the spring force generated by the bend in the beam
portion" to be -- wherein the beam portion of each signal
contact has the capability of exerting a spring force generated
by the bend in the beam portion in order to make electrical
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007