Appeal 2007-2450
Application 10/634,871
outward. We note that the claims do not recite that the first port is an
external port or that a peripheral device external to the computer is
operationally connected to the first port. The claims merely require that the
first port faces outward. Accordingly, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 8 through 10, 13, 16, and 18 through 22, all of which
have been argued together as a single group.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant contends (Br. 15) that the ports
being substantially functionally identical, as recited in claim 3, is "contrary
to conventional wisdom." Thus, Appellant contends that claim 3 is non-
obvious over Meng. The Examiner asserts (Answer 3 and 8) that Meng's
two ports are substantially identical. The second issue, therefore, is whether
the ports of Meng are substantially functionally identical.
Appellant's argument (Br. 15) that conventionally an exterior port
differs from an interior port is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Claim 3 does not recite an interior port and an exterior port. As explained
supra, the claims merely require that one port faces towards the interior and
one faces towards the exterior of the system board, but not that one port
actually connects to something exterior to the computer. Meng discloses
(col. 2, ll. 23-26) that a description of the second receiving space is omitted
because the structure and function of the second receiving space is similar to
the first receiving space. Thus, Meng's ports are substantially functionally
identical, and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 4, the Examiner asserts (Answer 3-4) that it would have
been obvious to substitute a USB connector for the ports of Meng "base[d]
on environmental requirements/preferences, in order to provide a space
efficient assembly." Appellant contends (Br. 16) that as of the priority date
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013