Appeal No. 2006-0462
Application 09/587,948
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we reverse the variously-
stated rejections of the claims on appeal rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn first to the rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 3, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
Klumpp and Takemasa.
From our study of Klumpp and Takemasa and in view of the
arguments presented by appellant and the examiner, we have
concluded that the examiner has not presented to us a convincing
line of reasoning to lead us to conclude that the artisan would
have combined the teachings of Klumpp and Takemasa within
35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner’s reasons for combinability, first
expressed at pages 3 and 4 of the answer, seem to be general and
somewhat presumptive in nature. It appears to us from our study
of both references that the artisan would have found no
reason to have provided any additional assurance of correct
contact alinement between the plug shown in Klumpp’s Figure 1 and
the respective blade terminals already taught in that reference.
Thus, the artisan would have apparently had no reason, from our
perspective, to have modified Klumpp’s teachings with those
argued by the examiner from Takemasa. The tang lug 31 shown in
Figure 4 and shown in cross-section form in an unlabeled manner
in Figure 1 of Klumpp serves as a member for securing the blade
within in the plug 10 as expressed at the bottom of column 2 of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007