Appeal No. 2002-1210
Application No. 09/483,018
further in view of Fukuda, we note that Fukuda is relied on for
disclosing the details of the connectors disclosed in Petit. The
Examiner has not pointed to any teachings in Fukuda, nor do we
find any, that would have overcome the deficiencies of the
combination of the references discussed above. Therefore the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14 and 18-22 over
Petit, Hughes, Lyon and Fukuda is not sustained.
We note that the Examiner, in addition to Petit, Hughes and
Lyon alone or with Fukuda, further relies on the admitted prior
art for rejecting claims 15 and 16, on Dara for rejecting claims
5 and 12 and on Takahashi for rejecting claim 17. These prior
art references neither include any teachings that read on the
claimed features nor provide any suggestion for combining the
references to overcome the deficiencies of the combination as
discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 5, 12, 15, 16 and 17.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007