Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
a part of or be integrated with the lead. Appellants (Reply
Brief, page 2) apparently want us to read "extending from" as
"unitarily formed," but the two phrases are different in scope
and are not interchangeable. If two people extend their arms and
hold hands, one arm extends from the other, but they clearly are
not unitarily formed.
The examiner (Answer, page 5), for reasons unbeknownst to
us, asserts that a one piece construction for the lead and
adapter would have been an obvious engineering choice and cites
In re Larson as support thereof. Appellants then argue (Brief,
page 8, and Reply Brief, pages 5-7) that reliance on Larson is
inappropriate. As explained supra, a one piece construction is
not recited in the claims, and, therefore, all arguments related
thereto are not pertinent.
Appellants also argue (Brief, pages 9-10, and Reply Brief,
pages 7-8) that the examiner has failed to consider the problem
solved, i.e., the need to eliminate a separate adapter and reduce
the number of seals necessary when connecting multiple leads to a
single port on a header. However, nothing in appellants' claims
addresses these problems. The claimed invention is not limited
to a unitary construction and thereby does not address the need
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007