Ex Parte Petersen - Page 3

                 Appeal 2006-2599                                                                                   
                 Application 10/199,986                                                                             

                 appears to duplicate these arguments among these independent claims.  No                           
                 arguments are presented as to any dependent claim on appeal.                                       
                       Even through we affirm the rejection of the claims on appeal, we do                          
                 not do so for any rationale of the Examiner based upon mere duplication of                         
                 parts.  This portion of the Examiner’s reasoning, such as at page 4 of the                         
                 answer, appears to brute force argue that it would have been obvious for the                       
                 artisan to have duplicated the single cantilever 22 in his various figures of                      
                 Yuzawa based upon a reasoning that indicates the mere duplication of                               
                 essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.  The                   
                 Examiner appears to base this reasoning upon a consideration of Yuzawa                             
                 alone.  Mere duplication of parts is an older per se rule of unpatentability                       
                 that is highly disfavored in recent case law since it basically eliminates a                       
                 need for fact specific analysis of claims and the prior art.  See e.g.  In re                      
                 Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1995).                                 
                       Independently of any per se rule of unpatentability, the Examiner’s                          
                 rationale expressed at page 4 of the answer “in order to have more security                        
                 between the connector and the mounting opening” appears to be                                      
                 presumptuous and not based upon any teachings or suggestions within                                
                 Yuzawa alone.  From our review of this reference there appears to be no                            
                 apparent basis for the artisan to have duplicated this reference’s cantilever                      
                 element 22.                                                                                        
                       On the other hand, we do sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal                       
                 based upon the additional teachings and suggestions of Lucius as best                              
                 expressed by the Examiner’s rationale at page 7 of the Answer for:                                 
                       providing another latching arm (22) on an opposite side of the                               
                       Yuzawa’s connector or the connector with two latching arms on                                

                                                         3                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013