Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
and even admits (Answer, page 9) that the prior art fails to
teach an aperture extending through the adapter as claimed.
Accordingly, the examiner has implicitly withdrawn the rejection
of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12. Therefore, we must reverse the
rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12.
However, as we find that the references do teach or suggest
the limitation of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, we hereby reinstate
the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Stutz in view of Fain via a new ground of rejection under
37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b). More specifically, each of claims 4, 5,
11, and 12 recites that the adapter "has an aperture extending
therethrough such that the aperture aligns with a header port
when the lead is coupled to the header assembly." Fain shows (or
at least suggests) in Figures 4 and 5 that the aperture in the
adapter through which lead 50 is inserted aligns with the
corresponding port in the header. Accordingly, the combination
of Fain's adapter with Stutz's lead would have rendered obvious
the limitation of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 9) that the limitation of
claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 of "an aperture extending through the
adapter so that a lead could connect directly to a port on the
header through the lead adapter" is missing from Fain. However,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007