Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 9
Application No. 08/454,898
of providing spring force by themselves (i.e., springs are
commonly manufactured with varying degrees of stiffness, e.g.,
a spring on a railway car may be considered to be "stiff" when
compared to a watch spring) but, since the arms or beam
portions 82,94 are resilient, these beam portions have the
inherent capability of providing a spring force as claimed
irrespective of whether the end portions or solder tails 88
possess spring-like characteristics.
As to contention (2), inasmuch as the beam portions 82,94
of Biechler are formed of a resilient material, they inherently
would exert a spring force when the solder tabs or beam
portions 88 "bear against the pads 106, 108" (col. 5, lines 67
and 68; emphasis added). With respect to claims 1, 2, 12 and
13, we also observe that these claims are directed to an
electrical connector per se, rather than the combination of a
connector and back plane or mother board. Thus, in independent
claim 1, the "adapted to . . ." recitation in the preamble
and the "wherein . . ." clause in subparagraph b) iii), merely
set forth functions which the connector must be structurally
capable of performing (see, e.g., In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007