Appeal 2007-1092
Application 10/939,463
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Holliday and Szegda. The Examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. Throughout the opinion we
make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (filed June 28, 2006 and October 27,
2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed August 28, 2006) for the respective
details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection based upon Nishikawa in
view of Holliday and Szegda is in error. Appellants state that “the claimed
invention comprises a braided portion of a cable press-fitted between an inner and
outer member, wherein the outer member is grooved.” (Br. 11). Appellants argue
both Szegda and Holliday teaches a pressing the braid member and the elastic
jacket member, and as such do not provide motivation to modify Nishikawa to
arrive at the Appellants’ device. (Br. 11).
The Examiner contends that the rejection of the claims is proper. The
Examiner states that braid material pressed between two members is taught by
Nishikawa. (Answer 5). Further, the Examiner finds that the function of the
grooves taught by Holliday and Szegda is to secure the cable to the connector.
The contentions of Appellants raise several issues, first is the scope of the
claims limited to a device where the braid alone is pressed between two members,
and second, do the references of record provide evidence to suggest using the
grooves on the press members of Nishikawa?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013