Appeal No. 2005-1765
Application No. 10/208,077
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
At the outset we note that the appellants’ arguments only address
independent claim 1, accordingly we group claims 1 through 4 and treat claim 1
as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c) (7) (July 1, 2003) as
amended at 62 Fed. Reg. 53196 (October 10, 1997), which was controlling at the
time of appellants filing the brief.
Appellants argue, on pages 5 and 6 of the brief:
Nelson does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed invention
including the first contact point being pressed against the third contact point
and the second contact point being pressed against the fourth contact point.
Nelson discloses contact points 62 and 64 referring to Figures 11-15.
The contact points contact the printed circuit board 13 however; they
are not pressed against each other.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007