Appeal No. 2006-0462
Application 09/587,948
In view of these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and it respective dependent claims 2, 3 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to independent claims 5 and 13 on appeal, we
reach a similar conclusion with respect to these respective
independent claims alleged to be obvious by the examiner in view
of Gilbert and Klumpp. Although we agree with the examiner’s
initial views as to the rejection of claim 5 that Gilbert appears
to teach and show a plug housing and a pair of insulated
conductors in the first two clauses of claim 5, we do not agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious to have
modified the teachings and showings in Gilbert in view of those
in Klumpp to have arrived at, within 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the
additional features recited in clause (c) which comprise 3
separate subclauses (i) through (iii).
We do not agree with the examiner’s urging of combinablitiy
that it would have been obvious to have combined the teachings of
Gilbert and Klumpp to form the terminal with a cable connection
portion to provide an efficient and strong connection as
expressed at page 5 of the answer. When studied in detail, it
appears to us that the artisan would have had no reason to have
modified Gilbert’s basic plug structure to have incorporated
essentially the crimped flange and piercing knife within it as
taught generally by Klumpp. The respective blade portions of
Gilbert shown in Figures 5 through 7 already appear to be secured
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007