Appeal No. 1999-2699
Application No. 08/884,049
it is expanded. (See answer at pages 4-5.) We agree with the examiner, but the mere
sequence of threaded portions does not by itself meet the limitations as recited in
independent claim 1. Claim 1 further requires “a coil within the aperture of the shell and
having a conical shape with a larger end, a smaller end and a middle portion
therebetween, the coil having a first plurality of turns at the larger end which engage the
threadless region of the aperture, and the middle portion being spaced from the shell prior
to insertion of the electrical wires into the aperture. (Emphasis added.) From our
understanding of Scott, the coil engages the threaded portion of the shell (See Scott Fig.
3.) Therefore, in our view, the combination of the use of a non-threaded portion of the shell
contacting the coil of Waddington with the teaching of Scott to have the coil only in contact
with the threaded portion of the shell would not have motivated the skilled artisan to use the
non-threaded portion of the shell to contact the coil rather than the threaded portion of the
shell. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 9. Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 11-15.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007