Appeal No. 2003-0396 Page 7
Application No. 09/698,570
For the foregoing reasons, appellant’s argument does not persuade us of any
error in the examiner’s determination that claim 3 is anticipated by Gardner. We thus
shall sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Appellant’s only argument against the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Gardner in view of Buchter is the argument discussed supra with
regard to claim 3 (see page 8 of the brief). We find this argument no more persuasive
with respect to claim 4. We thus shall sustain the rejection of claim 4.
We shall not, however, sustain the examiner’s rejections of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Engle in view of Gay and Gardner and claim 2 as being unpatentable
over Engle in view of Gay, Gardner and Buchter. While it not clear from the examiner’s
rejections exactly how the examiner proposes to modify Engle’s gladhand connectors to
arrive at the claimed invention, both of these rejections appear to rely in part on the
examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify the gladhand
connector of Engle to provide each gladhand with a first electrical connector mounted
on an inner face and a second electrical connector mounted on an outer face in view of
the teachings of Gardner (see page 5 of the final rejection). Given the disparate
structure of Engle’s gladhands, which are rotated to secure the electrical and pneumatic
connections, by engagement of the cam surfaces present on the flanges 35 of the
gladhands, and the connectors of Gardner, which are coupled by linear movement of
the connectors together to engage the electrical contacts and the pneumatic lumens
and secured together by rotation of coupling nuts only and which are intended
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007