Appeal No. 95-3158
Application 08/038,424
of the prior art, the long groove 15 and the short groove 19
do not intersect at where the cable or line cord is connected or
attached to the housing. To dismiss these differences as being
routine design choices for one with ordinary skill in the art
would be arbitrary, without support on this record, and
tantamount to ignoring the features of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we conclude that orthogonal channels intersecting at
where the cable passes through a wall of the housing would not
have been suggested by Haskins or any combination of Haskins,
Aoki and Kirchgessner.
The features of claim 1 as discussed above are also included
in independent claim 6. Claim 6 additionally requires two more
recessed channels and all four channels would intersect at where
the cable emerges from the housing. For similar reasons as those
discussed above, the four channel version also would not have
been reasonably suggested by the prior art. The appellants are
correct that the mere fact that the prior art may be modified in
the manner as suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 4-7
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007