Appeal No. 2003-2081
Application No. 09/893,931
specific definitions in the specification or in the relevant art which would limit the
examiner’s broad interpretation of these claim limitations.
Appellants argue that “neither of the references [Hoppe, Jr. and Endo] teaches
planar locks normal to the side walls and having first and second edges for cutting the
insulation.” (See reply brief at page 5.) While this level of specificity may have been
desired by appellants in the language of independent claim 9, appellants claim
language does not support such a specific argument, as discussed above. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to McKee, appellants argue that McKee does not use the term lock
to describe the structures that resiliently trap the wire in the terminal fitting and that
these bent elements must be flexible to perform their apparently intended function and
must be constructed to avoid cutting into the wire. (See reply brief at page 5.)
Appellants refer to the annotated figure of McKee in the principal brief where appellants
have included drawings made by the inventor, but these drawings are hearsay
testimony as an opinion by the inventor rather than by counsel. We have discussed the
teachings of McKee above and the argument based upon this hearsay cannot be
persuasive. Therefore, we find that appellants have not shown error in the examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness, nor have appellants’ presented adequate evidence to
rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007