Appeal No. 2003-0471 Page 5
Application No. 09/100,346
many or as few terminals as needed (thereby creating dummy terminals) in Kikuchi's
connector mounting structure at whatever end desired to provide additional connections
for the connector as taught by Anderson.
In our view, the combined teachings of Kikuchi and Anderson do not establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter since they
fail to present evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Kikuchi's connector mounting structure to arrive at the claimed invention. The first
difficulty we have with the rejection under appeal is that the examiner has not correctly
set forth the teachings of Kikuchi. Kikuchi does not teach having a terminal in each of
terminal accommodating chambers 6 (see Figure 4 as well as Figure 1 which depict
that only the chambers receiving wires 4 have terminals 1). Thus, Kikuchi does not
disclose or suggest "dummy terminals" (i.e., terminals in chambers that are not
connected to wires 4).
The second difficulty we have with the rejection is that the examiner did not
ascertain all of the differences between Kikuchi and the independent claims at issue.2
Based on our analysis and review of Kikuchi and claims 15 and 17, it is our opinion that
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007