Appeal No. 97-1049
Application No. 08/489,256
discloses a complete mating connector, not merely an improved
interface. Juds teaches in column 1, lines 7-21, that the
connector is easy to install, remove, and re-install, has a
minimum number of parts, and can be installed and removed
without the use of special tools. Therefore, Juds provides
motivation as to why the skilled artisan would have
substituted Juds' entire mating connector for the mating
connector required by Suhner, but not to replace the connector
interface of Suhner. Furthermore, the examiner has provided
no explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art
would substitute only the connector interfaces of Juds for
those of Suhner. Additionally, neither Suhner nor Juds
teaches why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
integrally formed a surge protector in the middle of the
Juds connector. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.2
CONCLUSION
Since we find no prima facie case of obviousness, we need not discuss2
the objective evidence supplied by appellants.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007