Appeal No. 1998-2146
Application No. 08/660,482
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 5) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 8) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 7) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 9) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The section 102 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 over Noda is set forth on page 4 of
the Answer. Initially, we note that the rejection points to structures in two separate
embodiments of Noda’s invention. The housing base, housing cover, complementary latch
means, and terminals are pointed out in the first embodiment (Figs. 1-7). Movement, or
capacity for movement, of the “plurality of terminals” is alleged to be shown in Figure 17,
which is part of Noda’s second embodiment, depicted in Figures 8-25.
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each
and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221
USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although not supportive of an anticipation rejection,
Noda discloses (column 7, lines 32-34) that contact members, provided by injection
molding in the first embodiment, may instead be “fitted” with the housing 21. The reference
thus contains express suggestion to combine a teaching from the second embodiment -- a
teaching we will address infra -- with structures disclosed in the first embodiment.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007