Appeal No. 1999-1626
Application 08/820,428
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse each of the three art rejections of the claims on appeal.
Our consideration of the claimed invention in light of the teachings and showings
within Mueller leads us to agree with appellants’ positions at pages 5 and 6 of the brief. At
the outset, we note that the claimed first and second coplanar contacts of the preamble are
described in the body of claim 1 on appeal. The closing language of the second wherein
clause at the end of the claim states that "an end of the leg portion is coplanar with the end
of the arm." Thus, the coplanar nature of the contacts recited in the preamble is also
recited in the body of claim 1 on appeal.
The shank 4 and its head 5 of Figures 1 through 4 of Mueller generally relate in
shape to the claimed first conductive member, disclosed as element 54 in Figure 3 of the
disclosed invention. As analogized by the examiner, the metallic cap 1 generally conforms
in shape to the claimed cup member disclosed in Figure 3 as element 62. Figures 3 and
4 of Mueller show that the shank 4 extends through the printed circuit board 12, itself
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007