Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
(See brief at page 10.) The examiner maintains that the improper hindsight has not
been used in the rejection and the examiner has provided teachings and lines of
reasoning for the combination of teachings. We agree with the examiner and find that
the examiner has provided reasoned statements for the combination which appellants
have not adequately shown error in or presented evidence to the contrary. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Hoppe, Jr. discloses elements 92 and 93 as “detents”
which spread apart the insulation from the conductor and that end “detents” 99 and 100
would perform similar functions to cut the insulation and spread the insulation apart
from the conductor. (See reply brief at page 2.) We find that “detent” is defined as a
part of a mechanism that stops or releases a movement. Webster’s New Universal
Unabridged Dictionary, Deluxe Second Edition p. 496 (1979). Additionally, appellants
argue that the “V” shaped detents do not exhibit a good resistance to pulling forces on
the wire [in a direction parallel to the wire] and for this reason detents 99 and 100 are
clearly not “locks.” We disagree with appellants and find that the term “lock” has not
been specifically defined in appellants’ specification. Therefore, we look to the same
dictionary used above and find that a “lock” may defined as “anything that fastens
something else and prevents it from opening, turning, etc.” Webster’s New Universal
Unabridged Dictionary, Deluxe Second Edition p. 1061 (1979). Similarly, we look to
the same dictionary at page 188 wherein “bite” is defined as “to take fast hold of; to grip
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007