Appeal 2007-2537
Application 11/170,468
1 Examiner found to be a connector (FF 19). Applicants’ conclusory
2 arguments are not sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s specific findings.
3 Group II (claim 3), Group III (claims 11 and 13-18), and group IV
4 (claim 21)
5 The argument with respect to claims 3, 11, 13-18 and 21 is the same
6 and therefore we address those claims together. Claim 11, which is
7 representative of the disputed language of claims 11, 13-18 and 21, recites
8 that a visual indicium temperature sensitive indicator is on the compressible
9 connection section of the connector. The Examiner found that one of
10 ordinary skill would have known to place the indicator on the portion of the
11 connector that would be subjected to the most stress during operation, which
12 would be the compressible connection section of a connector (FF 21).
13 Applicants apparently agree that one of ordinary skill would have
14 known to locate the temperature sensitive indicator at the areas of a
15 connector most prone to temperature damage, e.g., at the compressible
16 section of the connector (Reply Br. 5). Nonetheless, Applicants argue that it
17 would not have been obvious to place a temperature sensor on the
18 compressible section of the connector, since once the compressible section is
19 crimped onto the conductor, the label would be damaged (FF 23).
20 None of Applicants’ claims 11, 13-18 and 21 recites a label. Those
21 claims are broad enough to cover other embodiments, such as paints.
22 Therefore, Applicants’ argument with respect to why one of ordinary skill in
23 the art would not want to place the “label” on the crimped portion since the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013