Appeal 2007-0462
Application 09/519,547
universal for optimal usage (col. 2, ll. 55-56). We find it well within the
level of ordinary skill to make a window frame structure to hold the resilient
pins with variable pressure in the needed positions as taught and suggested
by Lazzery. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Appellants
argue that it would require a large effort on the part of a skilled artisan to
modify the Lightbody structure to achieve the result. (Br. 6). We disagree
with Appellants as discussed above. We find it well within the level of
ordinary skill to remove the center area of the array of Lightbody to use
either a window frame structure or two linear arrays of contact pins.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that clamping is required in Lazzery and that this
requirement would prevent skilled artisans from having the requisite
motivation for the combination (Br. 7). We disagree with Appellants and
find that it would have been within the level of skill of artisan at the time of
the invention to have modified the interconnection of the substrates.
Appellants conclude that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible
hindsight to reconstruct the claimed invention (Br. 7). We disagree with
Appellants, and we find that the Examiner has provided a reasoned
conclusion, as amplified upon here, as to the combined teachings and
suggestion of Lazzery and Lightbody. Therefore, Appellants' argument is
not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
claims 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10 grouped therewith by Appellants.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 7, and 9, Appellants rely upon the
same reasoning advanced with respect to independent claim 1. Since we did
not find those arguments persuasive with respect to independent claim 1, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013