Ex Parte REIS et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2001-1888                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/741,449                                                                                  

                                                    BACKGROUND                                                            
                     The invention relates to method and apparatus for providing electrical connection                    
              in a fixture for testing printed circuit boards.  Claim 13 is reproduced below.                             
                     13.    A spring probe receptacle contact structure, comprising:                                      
                            a spring probe receptacle adapted to receive a spring probe within an                         
                     internal cavity through an opening at one end and having a compliant pin fitted                      
                     within and protruding from an opening in at [sic] an opposite end.                                   
                     The examiner relies on the following reference:                                                      
              Welsh et al. (Welsh)                       5,411,418                    May 2, 1995                         
                     Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by                             
              Welsh.                                                                                                      
                     We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 13) and the Examiner’s Answer                             
              (Paper No. 22) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.                       
              21) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.                               


                                                       OPINION                                                            
                     At the outset, we note that the Final Rejection sets forth four different grounds of                 
              rejection against the claims.  Of those rejections, claims 1-12 and 17 were rejected                        
              under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Welsh, and claims 13-16 and 18-20                             
              were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the same reference.  Although the Answer                           
              contends that the Brief’s “statement of the issues” that lists the four grounds of rejection                
              is correct, the Answer does not repeat the rejections not relying on Welsh, and asserts                     
                                                           -2-                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007