Appeal No. 2000-2118
Application No. 08/995,139
to supporting surfaces for providing structural stability to the
mounted package.
We agree with Appellants’ assertion (brief, page 7) that
the combination of Rosenberg and Lee fails to teach or suggest
supporting surfaces on the housing package arranged on the rear
face and the lateral face from which the connecting legs emerge.
As discussed above, none of the references recognize the
importance of providing for different mounting positions of the
package without requiring a differently designed component.
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine Rosenberg with Lee, as held by the Examiner, the
combination would still fall short of teaching the supporting
surfaces on the lateral face of the housing.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 because the necessary teaching and suggestion
related to supporting surfaces on the lateral face of the
housing, as recited in claim 1, neither are shown nor can be
derived from the combination of the references. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim
1, nor of claims 2-5 dependent thereon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007