Appeal No. 2006-2203
Application No. 10/687,231
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir.
1997). For instance, as explained by the examiner, Eldridge ‘734
expressly describes the element as a spring contact element. We
invite comparison between, for examples, Figures 3A-C of Eldridge
‘734 and appellants’ Figures as well as Figure 3 of Grabbe and
Figure 1 of Yoshida. We note that appellants have advanced no
argument, let alone evidence, that the prior art components are
not capable of performing the recited intended use and function.
Appellants have not presented separate substantive arguments
for claims 13, 15, 18 and 19 which, accordingly, stand or fall
together with the claims on which they depend. As for the
remaining claims separately argued by appellants, we agree with
the reasoning set forth in the examiner’s answer. For example,
regarding the claim 12 limitation of a plurality of spaced apart
spring tabs, we concur with the analysis set forth at page 7 of
the answer with respect to Figures 4B and 4C of Eldridge ‘734
depicting separate tabs at each end of the element.
As a final point, with respect to the Section 103 rejection
of all the appealed claims, we note that appellants base no
argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007