Appeal 2006-2910
Application 10/226,586
3. Claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindahl and Nguyen and
further in view of Czech.
4. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lindahl and Nguyen and further in view of
Scharen.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
We affirm.
ISSUES
The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In particular,
regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection over Szwec, Appellants assert that
Szwec does not disclose a feed thru portion being at least as long as the
package wall is thick such that the feed thru is readily slideable within the
borehole through the package wall to adjust the axial position of the
connector (Br. 7-9). With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over the
combination of Lindahl and Nguyen, Appellants argue that providing good
physical contact, as stated by the Examiner (Answer 4), is not supported by
the disclosure of neither references (Br. 13). Appellants further assert that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013