Appeal No. 2003-0396 Page 8
Application No. 09/698,570
specifically to avoid the rotation coupling arrangement of gladhands (column 1, lines 50-
53 of Gardner), we find no suggestion in Gardner to rearrange the electrical contacts of
Engle’s gladhands. In that neither Gay4 nor Buchter5 cures the above-noted deficiency
in the combination of Engle and Gardner, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 and 2.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed and the decision to
reject claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The examiner’s decision is
affirmed-in-part.
4 The examiner appears to rely on Gay for a suggestion to use an electrically conductive blade in
the first electrical connector and a conductive contact means in the second electrical connector in Engle’s
gladhand connector. Be that as it may, this would still not result the claimed invention, with the first and
second connectors being mounted on inner and outer faces of the connector, respectively.
5 Buchter is relied upon for a suggestion to provide a cover over the contacts of Engle’s electrical
connector to protect the contacts (see page 6 of the final rejection) and appellant does not appear to
dispute this. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed above, even if Engle were so modified, the subject
matter of claims 1 and 2 would not be the result.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007