Appeal 2007-3245
Application 11/153,772
1 E. Analysis
2 The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3 as being anticipated under
3 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kain. Claims 1-3 stand and fall together (Br. 5).
4 The Examiner found that Kain describes (Fig. 1) a power blade
5 connector 1, a dielectric housing 6 with mating cavity 8 for receiving mating
6 connector 2, a dielectric separation wall spanning the pair of blade support
7 arms (Fig. 1 at 6), and a pair of blade terminals (as seen in Fig. 2 as 7) (FFs
8 3-4). The Examiner further found that Kain describes a hybrid connector,
9 one for both power connections and data connections, and that Kain uses the
10 same type of contacts 7 for data and power and are blade terminals (FF 5).
11 Applicants argue that they believe that 6 of Fig. 1 is not a power blade
12 connector, but a data connector (FF 7). Applicants agree that Figure 2
13 describes power blade terminals 7, but disagree that the power blade
14 terminals shown in Fig. 2 as 7 pass into the connector portion 6 as found by
15 the Examiner. Applicants contend that the connector portion 6 is a data
16 connector and would have straight wires passing through the connector 6
17 and would not have curved wires as seen in Fig. 2 (FF 9). In essence,
18 Applicants argue that portion 6 of Fig. 1 is a data connector and not a power
19 blade connector.
20 Applicants provide no supporting evidence as to what one of ordinary
21 skill in the art would understand 6 of Fig. 1 to describe. We will not credit
22 Applicants’ unsupported arguments. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
23 127 F.3d 1089, 1092, 44 USPQ2d 1459, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Nothing in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013