Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 10
Appellant argues that (brief, pages 16-19 and reply brief, pages
8 and 9) that claim 1 is not anticipated by Robertson because
independent claim 1 requires “wherein at least part of the wall
is dimensioned so as to allow a mating contact for the lamp
contact to be inserted inside the wall and removed without
damaging the wall.” Independent claim 22 similarly requires that
“wherein at least part of the contact sleeve is dimensioned so as
to allow a mating contact for the lamp contact to be inserted
within the wall and removed without damaging the wall. ”
Misnumbered independent claim 30 requires “a removable connector
removably contacting the lamp contact within the contact
protector.” Appellant further asserts (brief, page 19) that
Robertson does not show "a housing for receiving the base and the
lamp contact" as recited in misnumbered claim 30. From our
review of Robertson and the marked-up copy of figure 2 of
Robertson that is attached to the examiner's answer, we find that
plate 109 of Robertson, identified by the examiner as the
"housing" is not a housing and does not cover part of the lamp as
recited in claim 1. Nor does plate 109 receive the base of the
lamp or the lamp contacts 303, 304. Although we consider portion
103 (figure 3) of shield 102 of Robertson to be a housing that
covers part of the lamp (claim 1) and receives the base of the
lamp and the contacts when the lamp is inserted, we agree with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007