Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
relied upon to teach and suggest the proposition that planar wire locks are good for
securing the wire and prevent pulling forces. (See answer at page 5, Endo at col. 6,
lines 50-58; col. 7, lines 45-50; and col. 8, lines 1-10.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellants argue that there is nothing in any of the references that suggests the
hypothetical combination and that the hypothetical combination would not suggest the
invention as defined by the claims. (See brief at page 8.) In appellants’ discussion of
the combination, appellants again rely upon the Endo discussion of “Hoppe, Jr.-type”
insulation-displacement portions and the differences between these two types of
connectors and conclude that the Endo would find the teachings of Hoppe, Jr.
unacceptable and therefore teaches away from Hoope, Jr. While we agree with
appellants that a similar type of connector is discussed in Endo to that connector
specifically taught by Hoppe, Jr., we do not find this alone to be a specific “teaching
away” from the specific embodiment taught by Hoope, Jr.
Appellants argue that McKee does not add anything to the combination and that
the planar structure of McKee does not “cut into the insulation” and would not perform
its intended function if changed. Here, we note that the locks need only “bite” into the
insulation and need not “cut” as argued by appellants. Here, we find that the locks of
both Hoppe, Jr. and McKee provide some level of “bite” into the wire. The examiner
maintains that the rejection does not suggest that the orientation of the locks (elements
99 and 100 in Fig. 8) in Hoppe, Jr. be changed. (See answer at page 5.) Additionally,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007