Appeal No. 2001-1196
Application No. 09/139,155
the claims do not recite a direct connection, as argued. The
claims merely require that the aperture be aligned with the
header port. When the lead is inserted into the adapter and
connected to the header, the aperture through which the lead is
inserted will be aligned with, or in line with, the header port.
Further, Figure 5 of Fain appears to have the adapter abutted
with the header assembly such that the aperture and the header
port are aligned as aligned for direct connection. Therefore,
claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 would have been obvious over Stutz in
view of Fain.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 1 through 3, 6
through 10, and 13 through 15 and reversed as to claims 4, 5, 11,
and 12. In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) provides, “A new ground of rejection shall
not be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007