Appeal No. 2006-0462
Application 09/587,948
Klumpp. Thus, it appears that the artisan would have no need or
desire to have incorporated Takemasa’s web portion 53 (press
fitting section) and the associated lance-formed barbs 64
(projecting members) along the web portion as argued by the
examiner.
Additionally, we find ourselves in agreement with the
observations of appellant at the top of page 7 of the brief which
we reproduce here:
First, Klumpp, Jr. is concerned with terminals for
mounting in a plug housing molded around a pair of
terminals, and not with terminals for mounting in pre-formed
channels in a plug housing. This is apparent from Figure 1
of the Klumpp, Jr. patent, and from the inclusion of
terminal tang or lug 31 which secures the terminal within
the molded plug housing and would preclude the use of
terminals of the Klumpp, Jr. design in a plug housing having
pre-formed channels.
With respect to these arguments, we do not agree with the
examiner’s responsive argument beginning at the bottom of page 8
and top of page 9 of the answer relying upon the teaching at
column 2, lines 49 and 50 of Klumpp. Thus, we do not agree with
the examiner’s statement that plug 10 having received within it a
pair of blade terminals 11 and 12 is suggesting that the
terminals be inserted in the plug after it has already been
formed. The weight of the suggestions from our perspective to
the artisan is that Klumpp teaches implicitly but not explicitly
the plug assembly 10 in Figure 1 of Klumpp has been molded about
preassembled cords 13, 14 connected to the respective blades 11,
12 as illustrated in an analogies manner in Figure 2 of Klumpp.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007