Appeal No. 1999-2822
Application No. 09/103,449
spaced apart terminal contacts, and adjacent each of the
aforementioned contacts is a channel. The channels need only be
adjacent "said" contact terminals, wherein said contact terminals
are the plurality. Within the channels is another plurality of
terminal contacts which are not adjacent to channels. By using
the word "comprising," appellant has allowed for the inclusion of
a second plurality of terminal contacts such as those within the
channels of Inaoka. Thus, we are unpersuaded by appellant's
argument, and find that Inaoka meets the language of claims 1 and
6. As appellant has provided no further arguments regarding the
anticipation rejection, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 6 and the claims grouped therewith, claims 2, 3, 7, 9, and
10, over Inaoka.
In addition to the anticipation rejection discussed supra,
the examiner has rejected all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Andrews in view of Inaoka. The examiner contends that
Andrews includes all of the claim limitations except for the
contact surface extending across the entire width of the elevated
area, which appears in each of the independent claims. To remedy
this deficiency, the examiner includes Inaoka, asserting (Answer,
pages 6-7) that:
Although Inaoka is silent as to why the contact surface
extends the entire width of the elevated area, it would
have been obvious . . . to extend the contact surface
to the entire width of the elevated area for the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007