Ex Parte Topp et al - Page 7

               Appeal 2007-0955                                                                             
               Application 10/297,899                                                                       
                                                                                                           
               Significantly, we note that such decoupling could be achieved in Oka merely                  
               by not connecting two upper and two lower terminal strips together.                          
               Decoupling could also be achieved by merely disconnecting selected welded                    
               or fastened bus bar connections at the connecting points.  See Oka, col. 4, ll.              
               24-26 (noting that bus bars can be removed for unused portions in the                        
               circuitry); see also Oka, col. 5, ll. 64-67 and Fig. 13 (noting that the upper               
               and lower bus bars can be joined by fasteners in lieu of welding).  In short,                
               we see no reason why Oka’s second connecting part would not be at least                      
               capable of “decoupling the plug input from the plug output” as claimed.  The                 
               limitation is therefore fully met by Oka.                                                    
                      For at least these reasons, we find claim 11 anticipated by Oka.                      
               Accordingly, we need not reach the Examiner’s alternative obviousness                        
               rejection of this claim.  Moreover, since Appellants have not separately                     
               argued the patentability of dependent claims 14-21, these claims fall with                   
               independent claim 11.  See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d                      
               1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).                          

                                         CONCLUSION OF LAW                                                  
                      On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the                     
               Examiner erred in finding that the junction connector structure of Oka                       
               anticipates the claims.                                                                      

                                                DECISION                                                    
                      We have sustained the Examiner's anticipation rejection with respect                  
               to all claims on appeal.  Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims                
               11 and 14-21 is affirmed.                                                                    

                                                     7                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013