Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
conductive member/wafer 4 argued by the examiner to comprise the
claimed backer plate member.
Similarly, the whereby clause requires that the flexible
film circuit itself be received into the nest as stated in the
previous clause of representative claim 1 on appeal. Although we
have indicated there is such a region or nest within the non-
conductive housing 2 as shown in Figure 2, it forms no part of
the flat non-conductive member/wafer 4 according to Jerominek’s
teachings. Although we find it reasonable within 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the artisan to have inserted the male connector 101 of
Jerominek into the connector 2 of Rehbogen instead of into the
female connector 102 in Figure 1 of Jerominek, because of the
noted deficiencies with respect to Jerominek, the subject matter
of representative independent claim 1 on appeal clearly would not
have been met even if the two stated references were properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A similar conclusion is reached with respect to the
additional teachings and suggestions provided by Antes. It is
not clear to us from the examiner’s reasoning in the answer as a
whole what purpose the examiner relies upon Antes. It appears to
us, however, that the examiner is analogizing the multi-wire
retainer 10 as in some way comprising the claimed backer plate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007