Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
"does not describe electrically connecting two leads to a single
port." Appellants conclude (Brief, page 6) that Stutz fails to
teach providing a lead "with an adapter as part of the lead." We
agree that Stutz does not disclose an adapting member nor
connecting two leads to a single port. However, the rejection is
over Stutz in view of Fain, and the examiner applies Fain for
these two limitations. As to a lead with an adapter as part of
the lead, claim 1 is not so limited. Claim 1 requires that the
adapter extend from the lead, but that differs from being a part
of the lead. The adapter can extend from the lead without being
formed as a part of the lead.
Similarly, appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that Fain fails
to suggest a lead "having an adapting member formed as part of
the lead." As explained supra, the claims are not so limited.
Appellants also argue (Brief, page 6) that Fain fails to describe
connecting multiple leads to a single port, as "Fain requires the
same number of ports as number of leads used." We disagree.
Fain discloses (column 8, lines 40-60) that connector blocks for
leads 42 and 44 are both electrically connected to lead connector
50, which in turn connects to the header, and connector 51 serves
as a dummy lead connector, since no connector blocks are
connected thereto.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007