Appeal No. 2002-0572 Page 7
Application No. 09/302,584
polarized keyway and a non-polarized keyway as claimed. However, Andrews does
teach a polarized keyway (medial keyway 76), suggesting that notch E4 be offset. The
term “non-polarized keyway” and the functions attributed thereto in the last paragraph of
claim 11 do not, in our view, dictate any structural requirement that the notch E5 of the
modified Goshorn card would not also possess. More specifically, the notch E5 would
be located at a “predetermined location” relative to the modified (offset) notch E4, as
broadly claimed in claim 11. This is fairly taught by Andrews in that the layout of the
keying notches 76 must be “predetermined” to the degree necessary to provide a
polarizing function. We simply do not agree with appellants’ argument at the top of
page 4 of the reply brief to the effect that the terminology employed by appellants in the
last two paragraphs of claim 11 dictates a dimensional and/or positional tolerance for
the keyways that is not taught by the references. Further, as previously noted, the
notch E5 of the modified Goshorn card would be fully capable of aligning the first and
second pluralities of conductive pads with contacts of an appropriately configured
second (unclaimed) connector. For the reasons explained above, we also do not agree
with appellants’ argument that there is no motivation for combining the references in the
proposed manner.
In light of the foregoing, the combined teachings of Goshorn and Andrews justify
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the subject matter recited in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007