Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
We must now determine the appropriateness of the
rejection of claims 3 through 5 and 7 through 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Hampton.
Appellant admits [brief-page 16] that Hampton does,
indeed, include the feature of a hinged cover member being
free from apertures communicating with the interior of the
base member means. Appellant merely contends that Hampton was
filed after the instant invention. For the reasons supra, we
cannot agree.
Appellant then makes various arguments relating to
Hampton including the teaching, by Hampton, of C-shaped
members disposed on the cover and on the shield means with the
bar provided on the base, “which is contrary to the teachings
of the instant invention, since the instant invention the bar
member provided is on the cover and the shield means with C-
shaped members provided on the base”[sic] [brief-page 16].
Appellant also argues [brief-page 17] that the hinges of
Hampton allow for the removal of the cover and shield to be
effected in only particular positions and that this is
different from the instant invention. Further, appellant
argues that Hampton uses terminal blocks with slots to be
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007