Ex parte MUZSLAY - Page 5

          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              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007