Appeal No. 2000-0325
Application No. 08/914,365
Sep. 13, 1999) and the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 27, 1999) for appellants' position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
The standing rejections
The statutory basis for the rejection set forth on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer is
35 U.S.C. § 103. With respect to broadest claim 1, the purported difference between the
claim and the disclosure of Levinsky appears to be that "Levinsky doesn't disclose a crimp
tool having dies providing no more than three points of contact...." (Answer at 4.)
However, claim 1 sets forth an "electrical connector" -- not a crimp tool. The recognition
that appellants do not claim a "crimp tool" appears to be consistent with the position the
1
examiner later takes, in the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the Answer. The
rejection is unclear in setting out the perceived differences between the claimed subject
matter and the apparatus disclosed by Levinsky.
Fundamental ambiguities thus exist in the rejection applied against claim 1, and all
other claims on appeal, each of which incorporates the limitations of claim 1. Since the
rejection fails to provide proper notice to appellants with respect to the factual findings
1Additionally, appellants state, unequivocally, that “[t]he dies and crimping tool are not elements of
the claim.” (Reply Brief at 3.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007