Examiner reversed in Ex parte Chikyu
The portion of Yutaka cited by the Examiner provides no information
regarding the temporal relationship of insertion of each terminal 31 at the
ends of electric wire 30. See Ans. 4-5 (citing Yutaka Figure 48 and paras.
175-176). Rather, Yutaka discloses partial insertion of terminal 31 of
electric wire 30 into terminal accommodating chamber 91 of connector
housing 90 followed by the step of complete insertion of terminal 31 into
connector housing 90. Yutaka, para. 176-177; fig. 50; see also Br. 5.
Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Yutaka discloses inserting the
terminals at both ends of a wire at approximately the same time is not
supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Regarding Endo, Appellant correctly observes that Endo discloses
“simultaneous completion of insertion of a plurality of terminals which have
already been partially inserted in the connector housing in a separate
operation.” Br. 5; Endo, Abstract. Thus, Endo discloses sequentially
inserting the terminals at each end of the wire into the connector housing
followed by simultaneously seating those ends. Contra. Ans. 5.
Given that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon
findings that are insufficiently supported by the evidence, we do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 7 or its dependent claim 8.