Appeal No. 2006-0672
Application No. 10/112,176
Denninger and Moss to form electrical connectors with improved temperature
resistance, crack resistance and moldability (Answer, page 5).
Appellants argue that Denninger is more concerned with the novel physical
configuration of his connectors, and thus the materials used to fabricate the connector
are “less relevant” and not the “focus” of the Denninger disclosure (Brief, page 5).
Appellants further argue that Denninger provides a list of numerous materials for use in
the connector body, and each has different physical and chemical characteristics (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Denninger specifically discloses
PEEK as one of seven listed rigid, non-conductive thermoplastics, reinforced or
unreinforced, that can be used as a dielectric body that insulates and surrounds
conductor materials (col. 7, ll. 7-10). Furthermore, as discussed above, appellants
admit that the use of PEEK as a dielectric body with embedded conductors was well
known in the art (specification, pages 2-3, ¶[0010]).2 Denninger also teaches that the
dielectric material includes, but is not limited to, the seven listed materials (col. 7, ll. 7-
10). Denninger further teaches that it was well within the ordinary skill in this art to
select dielectric materials to “optimize resistance to temperature extremes and nuclear,
2It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicant’s specification may be used in
determining the patentability of a claimed invention (In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184
USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)); and that consideration of the prior art cited by the examiner
may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicant’s specification (In re
Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007