Ex Parte Engeser - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2005-0255                                                             Page 2               
             Application No. 10/190,475                                                                            



                                                 BACKGROUND                                                        
                    The appellant's invention relates to a method of establishing an electrical                    
             connection between at least one connecting piece of a workpiece and at least one                      
             conductor or wire, to an apparatus for carrying out the method and to a contact piece for             
             attachment to the end of the wire (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under                  
             appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                         


                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                
             appealed claims are:                                                                                  
             Travis                            3,777,302                         Dec. 4, 1973                      
             Swengel, Jr. et al.               4,298,243                         Nov. 3, 1981                      
             (Swengel)                                                                                             


                    Claims 13, 14, 16 and 18 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                
             anticipated by Swengel.                                                                               


                    Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                    
             over Swengel in view of Travis.                                                                       


                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                  
             the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007