Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
Appellants argue that the insulation-displacement portions 99 and 100 in Fig. 8
of Hoppe, Jr. have virtually the same shape and the same wire engagement
characteristics as the insulation-displacement portions disposed more forwardly on the
Hoppe, Jr. terminal fitting. (See brief at page 5.) We find no support for appellants’
conclusion and appellants do not cite any specific portion of Hoppe, Jr. to support this
argument. While appellants’ speculation appears to be reasonable interpretation of the
brief disclosure of Hoppe, Jr., appellants have presented no extrinsic evidence to
support this speculation. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue
that the insulation-displacement portions 99 and 100 in Fig. 8 are not resistant to pulling
forces and permit loose movements of the wire in response to pulling forces. (See brief
at page 6.) Again, we find no support for appellants’ argument in the language of
independent claim 9 whereas elements 99 and 100 in Fig. 8 are shown contacting the
conductor and therefore apply some level of pressure thereagainst which would resist a
longitudinal force. Additionally, the language of independent
claim 9 does not recite the type or extent of forces applied against the wire. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to McKee, appellants argue that McKee does not discuss the planar
elements relied upon by the examiner and that the inventor prepared a sketch in the
brief at page 7 that shows “the only plausible function of the structures.” Here we find
that the sketch and conclusion are a hearsay statement/conclusion which is not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007