Appeal No. 1998-0501
Application No. 08/518,997
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Dec. 8, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 18, filed Oct. 20, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 20, filed 1998) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that Preissler does not disclose or suggest the use of transparent
hot melt in the wiring cap which is also transparent. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue that the examiner used impermissible hindsight in combining
the transparent materials of Berbeco and the disclosed hot melt mentioned in the
specification. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellants. Furthermore, the
appellants argue that the examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion which would
motivate a skilled artisan to want to see inside a cover for splice portions of wires. Id.
Again, we agree with appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007