Appeal No. 2005-0303
Application No. 09/928,884
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the
examiner presents a reasonable basis for alleging inherency, the burden shifts to
appellants to come forward, if they can, with evidence to the contrary. In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664,
169 USPQ 563, 566-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ
226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Natsume discloses a junction block with an integral printed circuit board and
electrical connectors for use in an automotive vehicle. In applying the disclosure of the
reference to the instant claims, the examiner specifically identifies busbar 28 in
Natsume as the claimed “main assembly board,” Natsume’s upper and lower housing
segments 24, 26, as the claimed “main assembly housing,” Natsume’s fuse 16 as the
claimed “partitioned circuit element,” the receptacle 22, into which the fuse 16 is
inserted, as the claimed, “partitioned circuit housing,” and Natsume’s male terminals 32
as the claimed “plurality of connectors.”
Appellants do not deny that the identified elements of Natsume interact in the
same manner (i.e., fuse 16 is mounted within housing 22 and the connectors 32 place
the fuse in communication with busbar 28) as the claimed elements. Appellants do
argue, however, that the wiring harnesses 12, relays 14 and fuses 16 of Natsume “are
not partitioned circuit assemblies as claimed by the present invention” (principal brief-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007