Appeal No. 96-0733
Application 08/173,805
Luenberger 3,059,210 Oct. 16, 1962
Cairns 3,522,576 Aug. 04, 1970
Witek Jr. (Witek) 3,594,696 Jul. 20, 1971
Carlisle 4,058,358 Nov. 15, 1977
Narozny et al. (Narozny) 4,295,704 Oct. 20, 1981
Chan 4,425,017 Jan. 10, 1984
Debbaut 4,864,725 Sep. 12, 1989
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8 through 15 and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of
Witek, Narozny, Carlisle, Cairns, Debbaut and Luenberger.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The appellants' invention is directed to an environmentally
protected terminal in which separate modular electrical plugs can
repeatedly be inserted and removed without ever exposing the
electrical contacts to the environment. As stated by the
appellants on page 5 of the Brief, "[t]his is accomplished by
filling both the socket and the plug with a suitable gel sealing
material." In operation, the gel sealing material is displaced
when the contacts are mated and then returns to its original
location when they are demated. As manifested in claim 1, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007