Appeal No. 2002-1876
Application 09/358,158
We disagree both with the assertion that Atsumi '565 does
not recognize the problem of inadvertent over-insertion and the
argument that without recognition of the problem there would have
been no reason to modify Atsumi '565. Atsumi '565 discusses the
problem of a retainer inserted to a partial locking position
(which Atsumi '565 refers to as a "provisionally-retained
condition) being accidentally urged to a full locking position
(which Atsumi '565 refers to as a "completely-retained position")
by an external force before the terminal insertion step (col. 1,
lines 26-44). This is inadvertent over-insertion even though it
does not take place at the time the retainer is first inserted
into the housing. Moreover, as noted in the description of the
related art (specification, page 2, first paragraph), this
appears to have been a known prior art problem. Nevertheless, it
is not required that the problem be disclosed in Atsumi '565 and,
in fact, the rejection does not depend on the proposed
combination being made to solve a particular problem. 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 Keller,
642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881-82. Claim 1 does not recite
that the structure overcomes the problem of inadvertent over-
insertion.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007