Appeal No. 2004-0787
Application No. 09/827,048
clip into an open condition to permit unobstructed insertion and removal
of the second conductor into and out of said contact component.
CITED REFERENCES
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
references:
Kubota et al. (Kubota) 4,673,232 Jan. 16, 1987
Gelati 4,768,976 Sep. 06, 1988
Tozuka 5,454,730 Oct. 03, 1995
The Examiner rejected claims 33-37, 39, 44 and 48-50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Tozuka and Gelati; claim 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Tozuka and Kubota; and
claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Tozuka and
Gelati, as applied to claim 39, further combined with Kubota.3 (Paper no. 13, pp. 2-
4).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
3 The Examiner has inadvertently excluded the statement of the rejection of claim 42 in the Answer,
page 2. However, the Examiner does provide a discussion of this rejection in response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007