Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 17
Application No. 08/454,898
Piorunneck and Baechtle, the examiner's position is bottomed on
the notion that Biechler teaches a tapered beam portion (claim
4) and a ground comprising a sheet of conductive material
(claims 5 and 10). We disagree for the reasons stated above
with respect to the § 102 rejection of these claims. We have
carefully reviewed the teachings of Piorunneck and Baechtle,
but find nothing therein which would overcome the deficiencies
of Biechler that we have noted above. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on the combined teachings of Biechler, Piorunneck and
Baechtle.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yohn in view
of Piorunneck and Baechtle, the appellants argue that there is
no teaching or suggestion in Yohn of making contact with pads
on a circuit board by spring force as claimed. We are
unpersuaded by such a contention. Yohn discloses an electrical
connector having a dielectric housing 5, a plurality of
contacts 6 embedded within the housing (column 5, line 3) which
have a tail portion 10 extending from a first surface of the
housing, a straight portion within the housing (see Fig. 1),
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007