Appeal 2007-1092
Application 10/939,463
We are not convinced by Appellants’ arguments because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. Appellants’ arguments focus on the
teachings of Szegda and Holliday to grip both the braid and the jacket of the cable.
Appellants’ claims are not limited to the braid press-fastening portion only
gripping the braid. As discussed supra, we find that claim 1 is not limited to the
braid press-fastening portion gripping only the braid. As taught by both Szegda
and Holliday, it is conventional in the art to fold the braid over the jacket when
preparing the cable for installation of a connector. Thus, both the press-fastening
piece and the connecting piece, between the insulator and the braid, both contact
the braid in an arrangement that meets the claim language.
Thus, we find for the Examiner and sustain the Examiner’s rejection, as
Appellants have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants
have presented no arguments directed to the limitations of dependent claims 2 and
3. As such we group claims 2 and 3 with claim 1 and sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 3 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 under the under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as we find sufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013