Appeal No. 1998-2146
Application No. 08/660,482
In any event, in view of appellants’ arguments in the Brief, and particularly the
response submitted in the Reply Brief, appellants take the position that the examiner has
effectively ignored the final portion of claim 1. We agree with appellants that Noda does
not meet all the limitations of claim 1.
In the Answer (page 6) the examiner again refers to Figure 17 of Noda and
1
stresses movement of “terminals” 47 as being independent from movement of the base
and cover. “[T]hey could be moved into the terminal receiving passages after the cable is
first gripped between the base and the cover.”
Noda’s second embodiment, which includes terminals 47, is described at column 7,
line 45 through column 12, line 5. Contact members 47, during manufacture of the
electrical connector, are press fitted into housing 37 (Figs. 8 and 17). As shown in Figures
17 and 24, contact member 47 is allowed to move slightly within housing 37 to account for
any differences in pressing force between main cable 28 and branch cable 30 when the
cables are crimped. However, as shown in the figures, and as described in particular at
column 11, lines 25 through 44, the connector is designed such that movement of contact
member 47 is limited by the depth of groove 51 in upper or lower cover 49. As made plain
in Figures 17 and 24, the reference does not disclose a combination including terminals
mounted for movement “between inactive positions out of engagement with the conductors
of the cable [28 or 30] and engaging positions electrically engaging the conductors of the
1 We again note, however, that the statement of the rejection refers to terminals 24 (Figs. 1-7).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007