Appeal No. 2000-2175 Page 12
Application No. 09/268,925
accorded weight in determining the obviousness of that process.
See In re Pleuddemann, 910 F.2d 823, 825-28, 15 USPQ2d 1738,
1740-42 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuehl, 475 F.2d 658, 664-65,
177 USPQ 250, 255 (CCPA 1973); Ex parte Leonard, 187 USPQ 122,
124 (Bd. App. 1974). In our view, the case law clearly
establishes that the position of the examiner in this case is
in error. That is, the particular structure recited in the
"providing" step of claim 11 cannot be ignored under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Likewise, the particular structure recited in the
"connecting" steps of claim 11 cannot be ignored under 35
U.S.C. § 103. When that structure is given weight as required
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is clear that the examiner has not
established that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. For example, connecting the
plastic duct connector at one end to heating, ventilation or
air conditioning duct work and connecting the plastic duct
connector at another end thereof, to a register opening or
other heating, ventilation or air conditioning duct work is not
taught by Botsolas and the examiner has not set forth any basis
as to why such limitations would have been obvious at the time
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007