Appeal No. 2002-1876
Application 09/358,158
Atsumi '552 patent file we found a copy of Okada, U.S. Patent
5,252,096, issued October 12, 1993, assigned to the present
assignee (copy attached), which shows similar figures at Figs. 4
and 6. This confirms that Fig. 9 of Atsumi '552 is prior art.
Figure 9 of Atsumi '552 (and Figs. 4 and 6 of Okada) clearly
shows, but does not describe, the locking arm 5A being longer and
thinner than locking arm 5B. We find that one of ordinary skill
in the connector art would readily discern that locking arm 5A in
Atsumi '552 is a partial locking arm and locking arm 5B is a full
locking arm. (This is expressly taught in Okada, but Okada is
not relied on.) Atsumi '552 (and Okada) does not describe the
purpose of the locking arms having different dimensions.
Obviousness
Figure 9 of Atsumi '552 teaches one of ordinary skill in the
art to make the partial locking arm 5A thinner than the full
locking arm 5B. This would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art to make the partial locking arm in Atsumi '565
thinner than the full locking arm, which produces the claimed
invention. Claim 1 does not recite that the structure overcomes
the problem of inadvertent over-insertion. It is sufficient that
the collective teachings of the references would have suggested
doing what appellant has done: making the partial locking arm
thinner than the full locking arm. See In re Keller,
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007