Appeal No. 1998-3027
Application No. 08/546,179
While Ostapovitch’s contact structure is shaped like a
“box” and Wurster’s device is shaped partly cylindrical and
partly cone-shaped, it is clear to us that the cylindrical
portion of Wurster and the elongated box-shape of Ostapovitch
would have suggested employing a cylindrical shape to the
hooded socket of Ostapovitch and appellant does not argue the
cylindrical shape of the hood as a patentable distinction.
With regard to the claim limitation of the tabs “forming
at least three radially innermost locations circumferentially
spaced apart” by about 120 degrees about a central axis in
claim 1 and similar language in claim 9, the examiner points
out, at page 3 of Paper No. 11, that Wurster shows this
generally claimed structure and that it would have been
obvious to provide Ostapovitch with Wurster’s teachings of
having the fingers and tabs spaced 120 degrees apart in order
to “provide better surrounding and centering forces to a pin
located in the socket.” We find nothing in appellant’s
arguments which would show error in the examiner’s position.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007