Appeal No. 2006-0462
Application 09/587,948
in a substantial manner when viewed in cross-sections of Figures
3 and 4.
Although independent claim 13 is in the form of a method of
making-type claim, essentially the same rationale is utilized by
the examiner for combinablitiy purposes at pages 6 and 7 of the
answer as with respect to claim 5. As such, we so conclude that
it would not have been obvious for the artisan to have
incorporated the teachings of Klumpp into the overall electrical
connector arrangement of Gilbert as argued by the examiner.
Since we have reversed the respective rejections of
independent claims 1, 5, and 13 on appeal, the additional
rejections of their dependent claims is also reversed.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
through 3, 5 through 13, and 15 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007