Appeal No. 2002-1876
Application 09/358,158
at least one partial locking arm and at least one full
locking arm being formed on the retainer, the partial and
full locking arms being of substantially equal lengths and
being spaced from one another by a clearance that is
substantially free of structural restraints such that each
said locking arm can deflect through the clearance toward
the other of the locking arms, and locking steps being
formed on inner walls of the retainer insertion portion for
the partial and full locking arms to hold the retainer in
the partial locking position and in the full locking
position, respectively, and
wherein at least one of the width and thickness of the
partial locking arms is set smaller than that of the full
locking arms to thereby set the elastic forces of the
partial locking arms smaller than those of the full locking
arms.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Atsumi et al. (Atsumi '565) 5,437,565 August 1, 1995
Atsumi (Atsumi '552)2 6,036,552 March 14, 2000
(filed August 12, 1998)
Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Atsumi '565 and Atsumi '552.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 9) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 15) for a statement of the
examiner's rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 13) (pages
2 Atsumi '552 is not itself prior art because the present
application claims priority of a Japanese application filed
July 21, 1998, and Atsumi '552 was filed in the United States on
August 12, 1998. The examiner relies on the depiction of prior
art in Figs. 9-11 of Atsumi '552. "The Assignee has looked into
this matter and has concluded that the structure depicted as
prior art in FIGS. 9-11 of Atsumi does qualify as prior art to
the claims on appeal herein." (Brief, p. 4.) Thus, Figs. 9-11
of Atsumi '552 are admitted prior art. Further evidence for this
is discussed in the opinion.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007