Appeal No. 1997-3403
Application No. 08/032,889
Appellants argue [brief, page 5] that “[n]or does the
disclosure of the references act as set forth in the claims as
a result of the structure claimed, that a cable is pushed past
stiff deflectable portions ... , while at least one pair of
resilient strips of the diaphragm section remains biased
against the cable portion beneath and spaced from the now-
closed stiff deflectable portions along the top of the cable
recess.” Appellants further argue [brief, page 6] that
“[n]either [each single] reference nor the combination thereof
meet the limitation in the independent claims of a diaphragm
being joined ... by a frangible portion ... and the resilient
strips.” Appellants again advocate [second reply brief, page
2] that “a synergistic effect is established in that those
resilient strips not engaged by a cable would close ... ”
The Examiner responds [answer, page 5] that “Rodrigues et al.
disclose the membrane 48 which has thick portions and these
thick portions would inherently act as stiff deflectable
portions as claimed. Further, the middle section of the
membrane 48 can be considered as diaphragm section and the
membrane 48 would inherently act as the claimed grommet.”
We have reviewed the above positions of Appellants and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007