Appeal 2007-2537
Application 11/170,468
1 skill in the art would want to place the indicator on the area that would be
2 subjected to the highest temperature (Answer 9).
3 Applicants’ arguments
4 22. With respect to Group I (claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 10) Applicants
5 argue that (Br. 5-7):
6 a) there has been no admission that the noted labels mentioned in
7 paragraph 0004 of Applicants’ specification are analogous prior art;
8 b) Laske uses paints and not labels;
9 c) Weibe places temperature decals on resistors or IC chips; not on an
10 electrical connector;
11 d) Ko describes placing a strip on a power cord and makes no
12 suggestion to replace Laske’s paint with the strip; and
13 e) there is no suggestion to combine the references as proposed by the
14 Examiner.
15 23. With respect to Group II (claim 3), Group III (claims 11 an 13-
16 18), and Group IV (claim 21), Applicants argue that (Br. 8-12):
17 Even though a person of ordinary skill in the art would
18 know where the areas of a connector most prone to temperature
19 damage are located, it was not obvious to place a temperature
20 sensor on the compressible section of the connector, since once
21 the compressible section is crimped onto the conductor, the
22 label will become damaged (Br. 9-11).
23
24 24. With respect to Group V (claim 22) Applicants argue that (Br.
25 13): “The features are not disclosed or suggested in the art of record.”
26 D. Principles of Law
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013