Appeal No. 2006-1149
Application No. 10/296,406
shackles (60) to connect to the plugin connector (14) that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “form the adapter of
Muzslay having elastic spring shackles being pluggable into contact tabs of the counterplug,
in order to provide a resilient connection and efficient electrical continuity” [answer, page 4].
Appellant argues that the combination of the Muzslay patent and the Zinn patent does
not disclose or suggest elastic spring shackles pluggable into contact tabs of the plug-in
connector of the fuel injector, and that there is not a reasonable expectation of success for
modifying the adapter of the Muzslay patent to include spring shackles at an end that
connects to the connectors 16 of the Muzslay patent, as suggested by the Examiner [reply
brief, page 3]. Appellant asserts that because the Muzslay patent teaches an adapter for
connecting a straight fuel injector with a connector that projects at a 45 degree angle, the
success of modifying the Mozslay adapter so that each side is similarly structured cannot be
expected [reply brief, page 3].
Appellant also argues that there is no reason to provide spring shackles at the upper
contact part 56, as suggested by the examiner, because there is no male connector on which
to latch [supplemental brief, page 8].
The Muzslay patent teaches contacts 52 and 54 that each have a lower part 60. The
lower contact part has a terminal-receiving hole 64 that receives a terminal 24 of the fuel
injector [col. 2, lines 44-50]. Thus, the Muzslay patent teaches the use of female connectors
on the side of adapter 14 that connects to male connectors 24 and 26, as shown in Fig. 1.
Evidence of a motivation to combine prior art references "may flow from the prior art
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007