Appeal No. 1996-4111
Application No. 08/311,902
According to appellant (Brief, page 3, “[t]he claims may be
grouped for appeal.” Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we
need only consider the propriety of the examiner’s rejection of
claim 15, the broadest claim on appeal, consistent with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(5) and (c)(6) (1993). Claim 15 is reproduced below:
15. A battery terminal connector for use in replacing an
existing connector attached to an existing battery cable, and
directly connect a battery terminal post to the battery cable,
without any other part therebetween, comprising:
a connector having a first portion forming a hole the inner
surface of which forms battery post contact area, and a second
portion having a surface forming a battery cable contact area,
said second portion being adapted to be clamped to said cable and
engage said cable with said battery cable contact area, and
having all of the remaining outer surfaces thereof with the
exception of said surfaces forming said battery cable contact
area and said battery post contact area, coated with a non-
conductive material to prevent battery connector corrosion.
In support of his rejection, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Davidson 4,782,240 Nov. 1, 1988
Appellant’s admission at pages 1 and 2 of the specification
(hereinafter referred to as “admitted prior art”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007