Appeal No. 1998-0502 Page 9
Application No. 08/571,323
rejection of claim 1, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of the Group C claims, that is claim 16.
With respect to the Group D claims, Appellant argues that
the Miller patent, “...does not teach the use of a shoulder to
limit the amount of torque th[at] can be applied to the wire
connector.” (Brief-page 7.) Appellant does not deny that
Miller has the claimed shoulder. The Examiner responds that
Miller’s shoulder will restrict and define a depth to which the
connector can be inserted into the aperture (answer-page 8).
We agree with the Examiner and find no that miller teaches that
which is claimed. No torque limitation is claimed, and even if
it were, such a torque limitation is as inherent in Appellant’s
invention as it is inherent in Miller. As noted by the
Examiner, limiting the depth defines the amount of surface area
at which torque is transferred from the socket to the
connector. (Answer-page 8.) Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of the Group D claims, that is claims 18
and 19.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007