Appeal No. 2000-2262
Application No. 08/990,996
With respect to independent claims 11 and 21, the Examiner,
as the basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify
the electrical wedge connector disclosure of Chadbourne.
According to the Examiner (page 3 of the Office action dated
October, 26, 1999, Paper No. 12, referenced at page 3 of the
Answer), Chadbourne discloses the claimed invention except that
the piercing member 56, which the Examiner likens to Appellant’s
claimed folded inward tab member, does not have a set of multiple
teeth. To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Gerhard
which, in the Examiner’s view (id.), discloses a wire connector
shell “ . . . with multiple teeth in a semicircular pattern.” In
the Examiner’s analysis (id.), the skilled artisan would have
been motivated and found it obvious to provide the piercing tab
member of Chadbourne with multiple teeth “ . . . so as to have
better electrical contact between the shell and the conductor of
the cable.”
In response, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has failed
to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since proper
motivation for one of ordinary skill to make the Examiner’s
proposed combination has not been established. Upon careful
review of the applied prior art, we are in agreement with
Appellant’s stated position in the Briefs. The mere fact that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007