Appeal No. 2002-1471 Page 9
Application No. 09/141,183
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of
claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
therefore reversed. In addition, although claim 1 was rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we have considered the issue, sua
sponte, of whether Hagen suggests, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
invention set forth in claim 1. From our review of Hagen, we
find no suggestion of modifying the bending of the capture tabs
34, 36 of Hagen to permit longitudinal movement of the contact
sleeve in a longitudinal direction. Moreover, as independent
claim 8 requires that the first capture allows the conductor
sleeve to move in a direction coincident with a longitudinal axis
of the conductor sleeve, we find that Hagen does not anticipate
claim 8. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8, and claims 2, 9-
13, 16-18, dependent from claims 1 and 8 is reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 19. Appellants assert
(brief, page 8) that the "means for securing" constitutes a
functional limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Appellants assert (id.) that the Office is obligated to construe
functional limitations in accordance with the corresponding
structure disclosed in the specification. Appellants assert
(brief, pages 8 and 9) that figures 2-7 and related portions of
the specification teach structures corresponding to the "means
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007