Appeal No. 2005-1571 7
Application No. 10/263,275
Combining Ashcraft and Kraft to reject the appealed claims,
the examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to modify
the bottom of stud receiving passageway [38] of Ashcraft et al.
and provide a smooth or unthreaded arcuate passageway at the
bottom as taught by Kraft, so that a triangular configuration of
forces is provide[d] to hold the stud in position” (answer, pages
3 and 4). Ashcraft, however, effectively teaches away from any
such modification by criticizing the triangular locking
arrangement disclosed by Kraft as providing minimal surface area
pressure contact between the connector and the transformer stud
(see Ashcraft at column 1, lines 51 through 55). Ashcraft
maximizes this surface area of pressure contact by providing the
slip-fit hole in the connector with arc recesses which are sized
and threaded to match the threads on different size studs. The
proposed modification of the Ashcraft connector in view of Kraft
would actually decrease this desired surface area of pressure
contact, and hence lower the quality of the mechanical and
electrical connection afforded by Ashcraft’s blind hole design.
In this light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for
combining Ashcraft and Kraft in the manner advanced by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived
from the appellant’s disclosure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007