Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 specific findings. The references already discussed are facially consistent
2 with the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
3 rejection of claim 19.
4 Group VI (claim 2)
5 Applicants’ sole argument with respect to claim 2 is that the features
6 of claim 2 are not disclosed or suggested in the cited art (FF 31). The
7 Examiner determined that Warden described crimping wires to terminals
8 instead of soldering as shown in Ballman and that crimping and soldering
9 were known equivalents for terminating conductors (FFs 17 and 22).
10 Applicants’ argument that the features recited in claim 2 are not disclosed or
11 suggested is conclusory and not meaningful. The statement alone is not
12 sufficient to demonstrate that the Examiner’s specific findings with respect
13 to what Warden describes and the conclusions of obviousness are in error.
14 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
15 Group VII (claim 7)
16 Applicants acknowledge that Brzozowski describes a thermocouple,
17 but argues that there is no suggestion to combine Brzozowski with the other
18 cited prior art to arrive at claim 7 (FF 32). One of ordinary skill in the art
19 knew that thermocouples could be used to detect an overheating or over
20 temperature anomaly. The Examiner concluded that using a thermocouple
21 would provide for a more reliable reading. Applicants have not
22 demonstrated error in the reasoning. In any event, and as discussed above in
23 connection with Group I, a strict TSM test is not a requirement for
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013