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