Appeal No. 2002-0620
Application No. 08/921,943
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Atlas
Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943,
1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We observe that Dingenotto, as depicted in Figure 3,
discloses a cross section of the press-fit zone of a contact
element having an M-shaped cross section (page 6). The M
includes two lateral sides 11 and a connecting web 12 which is
connected to the sides through a transitional area including
lower edges 22 that form the sidewall portions (page 7).
However, Dingenotto neither discloses nor suggests that the lower
edges 22 may be generally parallel to each other. In that
regard, Dingenotto merely describes the lower edges as circular
arcs of larger diameter compared to circular arcs 33 and, in
fact, shows that the lower edges have opposite curvature.
We disagree with the Examiner that since the sidewalls in
Figure 3 of Appellants are not shown precisely as parallel, the
sidewalls of Dingenotto could also be parallel. What a reference
teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29
USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here
the examiner has not pointed to, nor do we find, any teaching in
the prior art that would disclose or fairly suggest that circular
edges 22 may be generally parallel to each other. Accordingly,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007