Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Brief. We add the following primarily
for emphasis.
The examiner finds that Chihara teaches a connector assembly
having a main body (11) corresponding to the claimed first
housing and a sleeve supporter (13) corresponding to the claimed
second housing. See the Answer, pages 3 and 5. According to the
examiner (Id.), the main body (11) made of a rigid plastic
material is more resilient than the sleeve supporter (13) made of
a metal, such as stainless steel and Permalloy. The examiner
recognizes that the main body (11) does not include the claimed
resilient latch and the sleeve supporter (13) is not made of a
plastic material having less resiliency than that of the main
body made of a plastic material. See the Answer, page 3.
To remedy the above deficiencies in Chihara, the examiner
relies on the disclosure of Kyomasu. Kyomasu teaches a connector
assembly having a holding section (20) having a latch means (20a,
20b and 20c) corresponding to the claimed first housing having a
resilient latch and a case (10) corresponding to the claimed
second housing. Kyomasu teaches the advantage of employing a
latch means (20a, 20b and 20c) in the holding section (20) to fix
a ferrule within the connector assembly, thus suggesting the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007