Appeal No. 2003-0539
Application No. 09/188,702
Claims 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glickman.
In rejecting the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Glickman, the examiner relied on the connector element shown in
Figure 25. According to the examiner (answer, page 3), Figure 25
of Glickman shows a connector having at least two holes formed
therein, with the holes being adapted to mate with the lug 401 of a
block 400 by means of an interference fit when the lug is inserted
into the holes. As the examiner sees it, the Figure 25 connector
element differs from the claimed connector in that the holes are
trapezoidally shaped rather than triangularly shaped. The examiner
considers, however, that “the shape of the holes [is] dictated by
the shape of the [mating] connector and the [appellants’]
specification does not express any advantage of the two-fingered
genderless connector over other types of connector[s]” (answer,
page 3). Based on the above, the examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art “to modify
the shape of the holes to conform to the shape of the desired
connector such as [a] two-fingered genderless connector for the
advantage of enhancing the connection between the connectors”
(answer, page 3-4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007