Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
attested to by appellants’ counsel, but is made by the inventor. Therefore, we are
unsure if appellants’ counsel or the inventor is attesting to this argument. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that these unnumbered structures in
McKee will return towards their undeflected condition and will prevent vertical
movement normal to the longitudinal direction. We find no support for appellants’
argument with respect to the direction of movement. Appellants argue that the
unnumbered elements have not effect at all on the longitudinal forces exerted on the
wire. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with this conclusion since if there is any
contact with the wire, there would be a frictional component in the longitudinal direction.
With this said, we find no limitation in the language of independent claim 9 with respect
to a longitudinal force. Here, restraint in the vertical direction is sufficient.
With respect to Endo, appellants argue that Endo addressed the deficiencies in
the “Hoppe, Jr.-type” insulation-displacement portions and that Endo concludes that
“the forces holding the covered electric wire is weak” when subjected to an axial force.
(See brief at page 7.) First, we do not find support for appellants’ argument at the
stated location in Endo, but do find support at column 2, lines 33-35. Second, we find
no correlation of the asserted argument to the language of independent claim 9 since
there is not an amount or directional statement of the force. Third, the discussion in
Endo is directed to a similar yet different structure than Hoppe, Jr. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. The examiner maintains that the teachings of Endo are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007