Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
a result of this review we have reached the conclusion that
the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claim 19. Therefore
the rejection of all claims on appeal is reversed. Our
reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Shibano
discloses a socket type electrical connector with a body 10
made of insulating material, holes 12 in the body, contacts 14
to be fitted in the holes, the body being open at its rear
side and bottom. Shibano differs from the claimed subject
matter in that Shibano does not show contacts of relatively
finer and relatively courser pitch, Shibano does not teach
horizontal and vertical ribs or walls between the contacts of
reducing length to form a stairstep or staggered
configuration, and since Shibano does not show contacts of
different pitches, Shibano does not recognize that the
contacts for each pitch should be similar in size.
To supply the teachings of these various features the
examiner has cited Martens, Chau and Kato. Turning first to
Martens, and for example, referring to figure 3A, while the
electrical connectors of group 41 are a different size than
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007