Appeal No. 2001-1454
Application No. 08/412,118
diameters, and the examiner finds that it would have been within the level of ordinary
skill in the art to employ wires having different diameters with different thicknesses of
insulation. Finally, the examiner asserts that it was well known to use connectors for a
wire harness and that it would have been obvious to use connectors with the wire
harness of Plummer [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to independent claims 18 and 30, appellants argue that the
references cited by the examiner do not disclose or suggest the use of a connector as
claimed. Specifically, appellants argue that since the references cited do not teach the
use of a connector, then the references also fail to teach the specific connections
claimed which relate to this connector. Appellants argue that the examiner has found
obviousness of the claimed invention based on the examiner’s own unsupported
statements rather than on evidence [brief, pages 9-11].
The examiner responds that Plummer clearly suggests the use of connecting
means between the branchout groups of conductors and the various subgroups of
electrical components, and the examiner asserts that it would have been “common
sense” to employ connectors to facilitate the connection of the claimed wire harness
and the electrical components [answer, pages 7-9]. Appellants repeat their assertion
that the examiner’s findings are based on the unsupported opinion of the examiner
[reply brief].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007