Appeal 2007-0720
Application 10/410,993
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that although Harting fails to specify a
module having an integrated functional block that can vary and transfer
signals, such modules are well-known and suitable for use with Harting’s
frame (Answer 3). The Examiner notes that “the main purpose of using
modules in the retaining frame of Harting . . . is that they share common
features and proportions so that different types can be placed together and/or
exchanged” (Answer 3). Based on this purpose and the “knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art,” Examiner concludes
that “[i]t would have been obvious to exchange known modules, as desired,
in order to achieve the proper connections for a particular project” (Answer
4).
Appellants contend that “Even assuming arguendo that functional
blocks are known per se in the art, since the Examiner neither points to any
specific art that teaches functional blocks nor provides an Affidavit of
personal knowledge as required by the MPEP, there is no motivation found
in the record to modify Harting as suggested by the Examiner.” (Br. 9).
Therefore, the issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
finding claims 4-9 unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Harting. The issue specifically turns on whether a preponderance of the
evidence before us shows that using the frame of Harting with well-known,
integrated functional blocks that vary and transfer electronic, electrical,
optical, and/or pneumatic signals would have been obvious.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013