Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
arguments thereto are not commensurate in scope and supported by the
claim language. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Here, we find the use of the term “formed” in the article of
manufacture claim to be quite broad and not specifically defined in the
specification or developed in the prosecution history. We find no temporal
limitation as to the time of being “formed” or limitation that the surfaces are
made of the same material so as to distinguish over the Examiner’s
reasonable claim interpretation and application of the prior art of Owens.
Appellant maintains that the Examiner has made a “leap based on
unsupported factual speculation . . . such as etching and appliqués” (Reply
Br. at page 9). We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant’s
specification discloses use of labels or appliqués at page 2, lines 18-19, “Or,
a label (not shown) can be affixed in the recess 20 after molding” in the
admitted prior art. Additionally, in the record, U.S. Patent 5,449,302 to
Yarbrough indicates that angled label portion includes printed information
about the electrical rating at column 8 and U.S. Patent to Englemann in the
abstract and the Summary of the Invention disclose the application of
information to electrical components. Therefore, we cannot agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has based the rejection upon mere speculation.
Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 12.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 14, Appellant argues that the
Examiner does not understand the problem of the prior art and solving the
problem in a single step (Br. 24). As discussed above, we do not find the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013