Appeal No. 2006-0672
Application No. 10/112,176
elements of the invention (Brief, page 7). Appellants also argue that there is no
disclosure of molding the PEKK to form the film or other article (id.). Appellants argue
that there is no motivation to make the combination proposed by the examiner, and
there is no teaching regarding the use of the film as a component in an electrical
connector (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not well taken. As discussed above, Denninger, Moss
and Gay teach all of the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the step of molding is not
required by claim 1 on appeal, nor does the intended use render the claim patentable as
also discussed above. Finally, we note that Gay discloses the use of PEKK film as an
insulator for electrical conductors was well known, and the motivation to combine the
references as proposed by the examiner is to improve the temperature stability,
strength, resistance to cracking, and moldability, as taught by Moss (col. 1, ll. 42-45; col.
5, ll. 38-49) and Gay (col. 3, ll. 5-11), and as suggested by Denninger (col. 7, ll. 55-65).
With regard to claims 4, 6, 20 and 25, appellants argue that the combination of
references do not teach/suggest molding the dielectric body around the pin (Brief, page
8). With regard to claim 5, appellants argue that the combination of references do not
teach/suggest a post-mold annealing step (id.).
These arguments are also not persuasive. As noted by the examiner (Answer,
page 7), Moss teaches an annealing step to achieve films of high strength and stiffness
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007