Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
those of group 42, in our view these connectors are or must be
considered to be at the same pitch as the connectors of 42.
Therefore, Marten cannot teach two groups of connectors at
different pitches, the connectors of each group being of
“similar size.”
Likewise, Kato teaches connectors for sockets 18 and 20
with connectors 20 being at a different pitch. However, the
connectors 20 are not of similar size with respect to the
connectors 18. In fact, Kato makes a specific point that the
two terminal types 22 and 24 are different in shape and size.
Finally, with respect to Chau, we agree that contact 49
is isolated from contact 48, although the single contact 48
does not define a pitch. However, the multiple contacts 56 do
form a separate pitch from the contacts in contact slot 49.
However, in our view it would not have been obvious to apply
this teaching from Chau to the contacts in Shibano. In our
view it is only by impermissible hindsight that the teaching
of Chau can be applied to Shibano. The examiner can point to
no suggestion, express or implied, in either the Shibano or
Chau references that would have suggested the adaptability of
the connectors in Chau to pin connectors to be inserted into
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007