Appeal No. 1999-1626
Application 08/820,428
For his part, the examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 5 and 6 of the answer
are unpersuasive. They appear to be couched in the context of an obviousness-type
analysis within 35 U.S.C. §103 where the basic rejection of independent claim 1 is within
the confines of 35 U.S.C. §102. According to the teachings and showings of Mueller, we
do not agree with the examiner’s view at page 6 of the answer such that according to the
modified teachings at column 3, lines 37 through 43 of Mueller, the shank would not be
level with the tabs 10 since there appears to always be some measurable length of the
shank 4 that extends either only into but not through the printed circuit board 12 or all the
way through it in Mueller. To the extent Mueller indicates that the bent prongs 10 in the
Figures 3 and 4 showings comprise one of the two claimed contacts along with the
remaining contact claimed being the shank 4 itself, they are clearly not coplanar as
required in the preamble and at the end of claim 1 on appeal.
Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent
claims 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we must also reverse the rejections of dependent
claims 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are all reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007