Appeal No. 1997-1331
Application 08/289,679
following quote gives further insights into the examiner’s
rationale in rejecting the independent claims:
The combination of the references provides an
alternative means of connecting the leads to the
terminals. By forming the terminals of Ward like
those of Munroe, the terminals can engage directly
into the sides of the leads rather than providing
separate connectors [such as Ward’s push-on
connectors 17a, 17b]. Passing the leads through a
portion [of] the housing as also taught by Munroe
aids in holding the leads in place such that they
can not be disconnected from the switch by pulling
on the leads [as with Wards connectors 17a, 17b].
Figure 6 of Ward shows that the switches are
connected in parallel across parallel leads in which
the connectors 17a and 17b would lead off those
leads. The teachings of Munroe provide an
alternative method of connection of the terminals
and the leads. [Answer, page 7.]
We will not sustain this rejection.
As noted above, each of the independent claims on appeal
requires a pair of continuous uninterrupted electrical
conductors having insulation thereon. The examiner concedes
(answer, page 4) that Ward does not disclose this limitation.
Concerning Munroe, the line switch thereof is designed for use
with a twin-wire cable 58 having a continuous wire 62 and a
so-called “open” wire 60. The wire 60 is “open” in the sense
that it “is interrupted, as at zone 64, typically by cutting
away a short segment of the wire 60 and leaving behind two
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007