Appeal No. 2006-2789
Application No. 10/215,217
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden
then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence
as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, the examiner's rejection
essentially finds that DE ‘297 teaches every claimed feature except for the
adapter 22 shown in the reference comprising two power contacts on the side of
the adapter. The examiner further notes that it is unclear whether DE ‘297
discloses an RJ45 plug [answer, page 6]. The examiner cites Clarke as
disclosing an adapter 10 with power contacts 62, 63 arranged at the bottom side
of the adapter. The examiner further notes that Clarke teaches that the
connection can be made using any type of plug/jack combination. In view of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007