Ex Parte Topp et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-0955                                                                             
               Application 10/297,899                                                                       
                                                                                                           
               point on a respective terminal connector strip, and wherein each of the at                   
               least two output connections on the second connecting part is conducted                      
               only to the respective terminal connector strip of the associated input                      
               connection.                                                                                  

                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show                      
               unpatentability:                                                                             
               Oka                       US 6,635,824 B1           Oct. 21, 2003                            
                                                                   (filed Jul. 20, 2000)                    

                      The Examiner’s rejection is as follows:                                               
                      Claims 11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                    
               anticipated by Oka or, in the alternative, under U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious                  
               over Oka.2                                                                                   
                      Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we                    
               refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details.  In this                     
               decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by                           
               Appellants.  Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to                     
               make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.                      
               See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).                                                            
                      The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to                     
               be fully met by or rendered obvious over the disclosure of Oka (Answer 3-                    
               4).                                                                                          
                      Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants argue that Oka does not                    
               disclose or suggest the following limitations: (1) decoupling the plug input                 

                                                                                                           
               2 The Examiner withdrew rejections based on other prior art references,                      
               specifically Onizuka and Kasai (Answer 3).  Accordingly, those references                    
               are not before us.                                                                           
                                                     3                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013