Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in
the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue:
In addition to the express grounds of rejection
contained in the Final Office Action, the Examiner
also casually stated that the use of integrated
conductors may be implicitly suggested in the
drawings of Takaishi and Ida. (Final Office Action,
page 3, line 10). However, Appellants are unsure
how the drawings of either cited reference
explicitly or implicitly teach the integrated
conductor recited in claim 1.
........Nevertheless, Appellants assume that the
Examiner is referring to Figs. 13a and 13b of Ida to
support his position. However, even assuming
arguendo that Figs. 13a and 13b disclose an
integrated conductor, such conductor does not
disclose or teach the integrated conductor recited
in claim 1 based on the reasons below.
........Specifically, as shown in Figs. 13a and 13b
of the reference, the terminal pins 251-254,
terminal plates 261-264, and connecting forks 28
must be manually pressed into the terminal base 30.
Accordingly, assembling such device via an automated
process is difficult, if not impossible.
........On the other hand, with respect to the
present invention, a metal sheet is pressed to form
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007