Ex parte ENDO et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No.2000-1286                                                         
          Application No. 08/832,672                                                  


          electrodes.  Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention,              
          and it reads as follows:                                                    
               1.   A connector fitting detection construction for                    
          detecting a fitted condition of a first connector and a second              
          connector, comprising:                                                      
               a lock arm, which is elastically flexible in a direction               
          generally perpendicular to a connector-fitting direction,                   
          provided on said first connector;                                           
               a short-circuiting electrode mounted on said lock arm;                 
          and                                                                         
               a pair of spaced apart detection electrodes projecting                 
          from said second connector;                                                 
               wherein, when said lock arm retainingly engages with said              
          second connector, said short-circuiting electrode interposes                
          between and electrically connects said pair of detection                    
          electrodes.                                                                 
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Saijo et al. (Saijo)          5,464,353                Nov. 07,             
          1995                                                                        
               Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saijo.1                                    
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,              
          mailed September 28, 1999) for the examiner's complete                      

               We note that on page 3 of the Answer, the examiner withdrew a1                                                                     
          rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007