Appeal No. 2003-1908
Application No. 09/747,608
The presently claimed spring contact provides that
an electrical component lead may be held by only three
elements, being the two arms and the center section, in
an approximate orthogonal orientation to the connector,
and at the same approximate location or cross section
of the component lead. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Takeuchi et al. plainly show that the coaxial cable, or
any lead, physically cannot be held approximately
orthogonally between a center section and two arms, and
be in electrical contact with the center section and
the two arms. Indeed, Figs. 3 and 5 show that the
Takeuchi et al. center section is in fact two arms, 7
and 2, and is not a single section as claimed and shown
for the inventive contact. Further, because Takeuchi
et al. has two contact regions along the length of the
electrical lead, there is no suggestion within Takeuchi
et al. to hold the lead orthogonally to the body of the
connector [page 6].
Claims 1 and 8 recite an electrical contact per se, not an
electrical contact in combination with an electrical component
lead. The language in these claims relating to the electrical
component lead is strictly functional in nature in that it
defines the claimed contact by what it is intended to do rather
than by what it is. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with the use of this technique in drafting a patent claim, it is
well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old
product does not make a claim to that product patentable. In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Thus, it is not fatal to the examiner’s finding of
anticipation that Takeuchi admittedly fails to teach or suggest
that an electrical component lead can be held approximately in an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007