Appeal No. 2004-0787
Application No. 09/827,048
Tozuka’s contact component (21) would not have the claimed structure, i.e., an
inturned lip, that is required by the contact component of the claimed invention.
The Examiner has not directed us to adequate motivation or suggestion for
modifying Tozuka’s contact component to include an inturned lip, which is required
by the contact component of the claimed invention. The Examiner has not explained
why the modification of Tozuka’s holder (11) would have resulted in a contact
component comprising an inturned lip. The mere fact that the prior art could be
modified as proposed by the Examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Claims 38 and 42
The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Tozuka and Kubota; and claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Tozuka and Gelati, as applied to claim 39, further
combined with Kubota.
The subject matter of claims 38 and 42 requires the spring locking clip to have
a locking end portion that is transversely curved across the entire width of the end
portion to conform to the profile of the second conductor. The Examiner relies on
Kubota to describe this element of the claimed invention. Specifically the Examiner
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007