Appeal No. 1999-1626
Application 08/820,428
comprised in these figures of conductive printed circuits 14 with an intermediate insulating
layer 13. The disputed teachings at column 3, lines 37 through 43 indicate that
alternatively the shank 4 may not necessarily pass completely through the circuit board 12
but only may terminate within it or within the support 13 such as when only one printed
circuit element 14 is utilized. In any event, the shank 4 still extends into the printed circuit
board 14 in some manner according to the teachings and showings in Mueller.
Our understanding of Mueller is therefore consistent with the arguments presented
at pages 5 and 6 of the brief where the appellants argue at the bottom of page 5 "to effect
fastening, shank 4 passes partially through support 13. Accordingly, the end of the shank 4
is not coplanar with prongs 10." It is these prongs 10 in Figures 1 and 2 of Mueller which
are bent into the notches 11 of the corresponding insulating layer 3. The examiner argues
the correspondence of these prongs 10 in a bent position to the claimed end of the leg
portion of the cup member such as the cap 1 of Mueller. We thus agree with appellants’
arguments at the bottom of page 6 of the brief "that Mueller teaches and discloses a
solderless assembly without coplanar contacts, which requires securing the assembly of
FIG. 2 with a fastening means (e.g., shank 4) that extends into or completely through the
printed circuit panel 12."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007