Appeal No. 1998-3027
Application No. 08/546,179
However, appellant clearly argues the claim limitation of
the tabs having a length “less than one-quarter” that of said
fingers, and this limitation appears in independent claims 1
and 9. While the examiner relies on the “tabs” 44, 46 and 48
of Wurster to provide this teaching, it is clear from
Wurster’s disclosure that these elements are not “tabs,” as
claimed, but rather “anti-tangle shields” which prevent
tangling of the sockets during tumbling or processing. These
anti-tangling shields of Wurster are not used to “guide a pin
contact,” as required by claim 1, and it is a bit of a
stretch, in our view, to call these shields “lead-in tabs” as
set forth in instant claims 1 and 9. Since the only reference
that has what might reasonably be considered “lead-in tabs” is
Ostapovitch and the lead-in tabs, 50, of Ostapovitch are
clearly not of a length which is “less than one-quarter” that
of the fingers, 13, the limitations of instant claims 1 and 9
are not met.
Now, the examiner contends that it does not matter that
Ostapovitch does not disclose stiff tabs being less than one-
fourth the length of the fingers because “stiff” is a relative
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007