Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
(Answer-page 21). Appellant has indicated no specific error in the examiner’s reasoning.
With regard to the Group X claims 21-23, the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness by explaining the various features of Herwig and Tsai (Answer-pages
21-22) and finding that it would have been obvious to have implemented the cable of Herwig
in a cable system as disclosed by Tsai “for the advantage of providing a compact and clean
wiring in said housing” (Answer-page 22). Appellant has indicated no specific error in the
examiner’s reasoning.
With regard to the Group XI claim 26, the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness by explaining the various features of Herwig and Tsai (Answer-pages
23-24) and adding Decuir for the feature of a plurality of signal wires comprising a “twisted
pair.” The examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to combine these references
“for the advantage of supporting high speed version of USB (See Decuir, col. 5, lines 5-7)”
(Answer-page 24). Appellant has indicated no specific error in the examiner’s reasoning.
With regard to the Group XII claim 27, the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness by explaining the various features of Herwig and Tsai, recognizing that
this combination did not explicitly teach a plurality of signal wires comprising a “fiber optic
channel,” and applying Sanchez (Figure 2A) for a teaching of an electro-optic interface
system having such signal wires. The examiner reasoned that the artisan would have been
led to make the combination “for the advantage of providing an electro-optic system of
operation for communicating high aped [sic, speed] digital signals between two or more
electronic systems (See Sanchez, col. 1, lines 57-60) without spreading electromagnetic
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007