Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
Appellant further argues that Martin is non-analogous art because the
heatsink of Martin is not reasonably pertinent to the problems with which
the invention is concerned (Br. 15-16).
The Examiner does not respond to this argument. However, Martin is
at least reasonably pertinent to the general problem facing the inventor of
housings for electronic modules. The fact that Martin contains additional
teachings regarding cooling with a heatsink does not make it non-analogous.
We find that Martin is within the scope of the relevant prior art.
The rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
Group XI - claims 7 and 9-11
Claims 7 and 9-11 are argued to stand or fall together (Br. 5).
The Examiner does not address the limitation "said connector
assembly further comprises a plurality of connectors for connecting to wire
harnesses" in claim 7. The Examiner finds that Mazura does not disclose the
circuit board connected to a connector assembly without using ribbon cables
(recited in claim 9), or being connected with surface mounted leads (recited
in claim 10), or being connected with 90 degree leads (recited in claim 11),
and finds that these limitations are taught in Figure 2 of Martin, but never
addresses the limitations of claim 7.
Appellant argues that the combination of Mazura and Martin fails to
teach "said connector assembly further comprises a plurality of connectors
for connecting to wire harnesses," as recited in claim 7 (Br. 15). Appellant
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013