Appeal No. 2003-2098 Page 20
Application No. 09/833,978
portion of said third electrically conductive contact and away from said cam-
shaped arcuate body such that as said rocker switch is articulated, said first
electrical conductive contact engages said blade connectors at one end and
engages said third electrical conductive contact at an opposite end;
articulation of said rocker switch causes electrical communication
between said blade connectors, said first electrical conductive contact, said
second electrical conductive contact and said third electrical conductive contact,
thereby creating electrical continuity between said receptacle connector[s],
through said second electrical conductive contact and said third electrical
conductive contact, to said first electrical conductive contact and to said blade
connector[s].[3]
The appellant argues that the claimed first electrically conductive contact,
second electrically conductive contact and third electrically conductive contact as
recited in claim 10 and claim 11 dependent thereon are not suggested by Lockard's
rocker switch. We agree. In the rejection of claim 10, the examiner has never
explained how the limitations of claim 10 are met. Furthermore, it is clear from the
teachings of Freeman that the rocker switch as modified by Lockard would still only
connect/disconnect prong 17 to contact element 19. That is, Freeman's prong 18 would
always be connected to contact element 20 by connecting portion 29. Accordingly,
there is no teaching in the applied prior art of having both the second electrically
conductive contact and the third electrically conductive contact as set forth in claim 10.
3 The appellant is encouraged to amend claim 10 to include the material indicated by us in
brackets since we believe that these changes help to improve the readability of the claim.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007