Ex Parte Miyachi et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-1193                                                        
          Application No. 09/570,123                                                  


                    1.  A connector assembly, comprising:                             
                    a multi-part housing for mating with a complementary              
               connecting device, including                                           
                    a first housing part of a first, resilient plastic                
               material and including a resilient latch portion for                   
               latching engagement with the complementary connecting                  
               device; and                                                            
                    a second housing part of a second plastic material                
               having less resiliency than said first plastic material and            
               including a cavity for receiving and retaining an operative            
               component of the connector assembly.                                   
                                PRIOR ART REFERENCES                                  
               In support of his rejection, the examiner relies on the                
          following prior art references:                                             
          Chihara                       5,307,435           Apr. 26, 1994             
          Kyomasu et al. (Kyomasu)      5,684,903           Nov.  4, 1997             
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chihara and                   
          Kyomasu.                                                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and               
          prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the              
          examiner and appellants in support of their respective positions.           
          This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103            
          rejection is not well founded.  Accordingly, we will not sustain            

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007