Appeal No. 1999-2822
Application No. 09/103,449
purpose of providing a larger contact surface since it
was known in the art that covering the entire width of
the elevated area with a conductive element would
provide a better contact surface and eliminate the
terminal misregistration or misalignment during the
insertion of the mating terminal.
However, as pointed out by appellant (Brief, pages 7-8), when the
two portions of Andrews' connector come together, there is a
close fit between the ribs and the opposing recesses. Thus,
Andrews' connector has no problem with misregistration and,
therefore, would not benefit from extending the contact terminal
across the entire width of the elevated area. Accordingly, there
is no motivation to combine the teachings of Inaoka with those of
Andrews. Consequently, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, so we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 18. 2
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3,
6, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. The decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed. As at least one rejection has been affirmed
for some but not all of the claims, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed-in-part.
2 We note that although we have found that Inaoka alone anticipates
some of the claims, and thus would also render obvious the same claims, the
combination of Andrews and Inaoka, as presented by the examiner, fails to
render obvious any of the claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007