Appeal No. 2005-1398 Page 4
Application No. 10/202,359
connector 80 is simply not well taken. The deformation of the spring arm 18 by the
contact pad 96 of the semiconductor device to maintain the spring arm against the
surface 78 of wall 58 meets the definition of “retain” (i.e., “to keep or hold in a particular
place, condition, or position”) offered by appellants on page 4 of their reply brief.
We fully appreciate that Grabbe does not disclose any structure, in addition to
the contact of the semiconductor contact pad 96 against the spring arm 18, for retaining
the semiconductor 92 in the connector 80, but claim 1 does not require such.
Anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that
all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the examiner’s determination that
claim 1 is anticipated by Grabbe. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims
2, 3, 7 and 8, which appellants have not separately argued apart from claim 1, is
sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007