Appeal No. 2006-2276
Application No. 10/426,594
respect to Schauer, exist notwithstanding the additional teachings beginning
at the middle of appellants’ admitted prior art discussion at page 2 of the
specification as filed.
As to the features of independent claim 10 on appeal addressed at
page 11 of the principal brief, the focus of the arguments here is related to
the individual cable branches of this claim. While it is recognized as argued
by appellants that Schauer does not teach dividing a segment of a ribbon
cable into individual cable branches, appellants’ remarks also indicate that
their own admitted prior art “teaches that the individual cable branches”
were known in the art.
The examiner addresses these arguments in the principal brief at pages
15 and 16 of the answer where the examiner significantly points out that
“fanning (dividing cable ends) is a commonly utilized method of connecting
connectors to flat ribbon cables” at the bottom of page 15 of the answer.
This has not been challenged in the reply brief. The examiner’s continued
reliance upon the discussion, for example, at specification page 2, lines 18
through 23, of the admitted prior art is persuasive of unpatentability.
Correspondingly, while appellants’ responsive arguments at pages 6 and 7 of
the reply brief focus only upon the teachings in Schauer, they do not even
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007