Appeal No. 1997-0212
Application 08/206,669
a conductor 21, and the conductor 21 is insert-
molded in a resin. (See Fig. 2A). .....Therefore,
the conductors of the claimed invention can be
produced quickly and inexpensively via an automation
process. (Brief-pages 12 and 13.)
This argument fails at the outset because it is not based on
any limitation appearing in the claims. Thus, the
applicability of automation is immaterial. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 ((CCPA 1982).
In Appellants’ argument recited supra, they have assumed
arguendo that Ida’s Figures 13a and 13b disclose an integrated
conductor, and that is the real question. What is an
integrated conductor? At oral hearing, Appellants stated that
an integrated conductor is a well known term of art but could
provide no evidentiary definition. In Appellants’
specification, it states:
The present invention has been devised to overcome
the above-described problems, and its object is to
obtain a device which makes it possible to disuse
the [wiring] harness for interconnecting the devices
of an ignition system, facilitates assembly, has
5-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007