Appeal No. 2003-1704
Application No. 09/604,141
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 20 and 23) and
the answer (paper number 21) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 16,
18 through 23 and 25 through 29.
All of the claims on appeal require the use of a “high
flexural strength rigid epoxy resin” to bond the coaxial cable to
the annular locking member. Appellants and the examiner agree that
Toma discloses all of the claimed elements except for the noted
bonding agent (brief, page 5; answer, page 4). According to the
examiner (answer, pages 4 and 7 through 13), Shimirak discloses
(column 8, lines 48 through 51) the use of an epoxy resin to bond
or seal a coaxial cable to a connector. Based upon the teachings
of Shimirak, the examiner concludes (answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to use a bonding agent (e.g. an epoxy resin) instead
of friction force to provide a stronger connection.
Additionally, it would have been within the skill of a
worker in the art at the time the invention was made to
elect a specific epoxy resin base[d] on their know[n]
characteristics, i.e. an epoxy resin that provides a pull
strength in excess of 10 pounds and antirotational
captivation up to 90/, to provide that desire[d] bonding
of the connector to the outer insulator.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007