Appeal No. 204-2024 Page 2
Application No. 10/138,716
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an electrical connector. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1. Before us were two
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 1-10 and 22 as being anticipated by Alvarez
and claims 17 and 25 as being anticipated by O’Loughlin, and two rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), claim 20 as being unpatentable over Alvarez in view of Dillon, and
claim 23 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin in view of Dillon.
OPINION
The objective of the invention is to provide improvements in connectors for
connecting together at least two angled electrical conductors. As recited in independent
claims 1 and 17, the connector comprises first and second sections which are
“comprised of a single extruded metal member.” Independent claim 1 was rejected
as being anticipated by Alvarez, and independent claim 17 as being anticipated by
O’Loughlin. The only argument advanced by the appellant with regard to either of these
rejections in the briefs was that neither reference discloses or teaches that the electrical
connector is an “extruded” metal member and thus they could not anticipate the claims.
For the reasons set forth on pages 4-8 of our decision, we found this argument not to be
persuasive, and we sustained both of the rejections. The essence of our decision was
that the claimed connector is a product by process in that it is manufactured by the
process of extrusion and therefore the claim is, in fact, a product by process claim, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007