Appeal No. 2004-1252
Application No. 09/705,710
failed to advance any evidence or cogent line of reasoning that
Ragard’s circuit board 6, for which the insertion head 100 is
designed for use, is structurally similar to such a housing or
substrate in any relevant aspect. Indeed, and as persuasively
alluded to by the appellants (see, for example, page 10 in the
main brief), the specified housing or substrate, at least to the
extent described in the appellant’s specification, corresponds
much more closely to Ragard’s electrical component 4, 5, than it
does to the circuit board 6. It is not at all apparent how
Ragard’s insertion head 100 might be inherently capable of
inserting leads the housing or substrate of a like component.
Thus, Ragard does not provide a sufficient factual basis for
the examiner’s determination that the insertion apparatus 100
disclosed by Ragard meets, or would have suggested, the lead
pusher or lead inserting means limitations recited in claims 30,
43 and 44. Furthermore, this evidentiary deficiency in Ragard
find no cure in the examiner’s application of Tamano, Kirsch
and/or Holcomb.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain:
a) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 30
through 42, 44, 47, 48 and 51 through 55 as being anticipated by
Ragard;
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007