Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268
portion of the Brief as to any claim other than independent claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, we
confine our remarks to representative independent claim 1 on appeal as do both parties.
We sustain the rejections for the reasons set forth by the examiner as outlined briefly in
the statement of the rejections at page 3 of the Answer and embellished upon in the examiner’s
responsive arguments at page 4. We are not persuaded that appellants’ arguments at pages 3
through 5 of the Brief present persuasive arguments that distinguish the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal over the teachings and showings as argued by the
examiner as to Paagman.
The initial showing of various portions of figure 1 of Paagman does not include the claim
requirement of the common housing having grooves. On the other hand, the examiner correctly
points out that the showing in various portions of figure 10 does show a connecter housing 70
having respective top grooves 73 and shorter bottom grooves 77.
The printed circuit board assembly 1 in the various showings in figure 1 takes various
forms such as the printed circuit board module 30 in figure 2 comprising individual printed
circuit boards 31. Various portions of Paagman consider printed circuit board 31 also as a
substrate material. In any event, appellants’ own specification relies upon the prior art’s
knowledge of what comprises a printed circuit board having a substrate and various conductive
tracks thereon as noted at page 4 of the specification as filed.
Of interest is the printed circuit assembly in figure 2 as shown in the various portions of
figure 6 as comprising an insulative cover 56. As discussed beginning at the bottom of column 5
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007