Appeal No. 1999-1624
Application 08/834,080
the end of each independent claim on appeal is reflective of the discussion at page 9, lines
14-22 of the specification as filed.
The examiner’s position at the bottom of page four of the answer and the statement
of the rejection recognize that Brunker discloses a plurality of vertical walls projecting from
one side of a ground plate for receiving the cables, but recognizes that there is no teaching
of a hump projecting from that ground plate portion having a slot for receiving the cables.
The examiner proposes as obvious to the artisan within 35 U.S.C. §103 to utilize
Maejima’s Figure 2 press connecting portion 2a similar to the claimed hump with a
receiving slot for a cable or wire 5 instead of what he regards as the vertical walls
projecting from the side of the ground plate in Figures 7-9 of Brunker. Similar, unlabeled
press connecting portions are shown in the second embodiment in Figure 4 in Maejima
corresponding to the press connecting portion 2a in Figure 2. Again, similar structures are
labeled as the wire press connecting portion 23a within the press connecting terminals 23
and the third embodiment of Figure 6.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007