Appeal No. 1998-2114
Application No. 08/491,286
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The obviousness
rejection of claim 1 is reversed because of lack of evidence
or a convincing line of reasoning to support any of the
examiner’s assertions.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 11 and 13 through 15 based upon the teachings of
Permut, the examiner acknowledges (answer, pages 5 and 6) that
Permut does not have a side opening in the housing, but
concludes (answer, page 6) that “it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have provided the ‘rear’ opening of Permut on a
side portion of the housing” because “providing the opening on
the side of the housing as opposed to the rear would have
resulted through routine experimentation and optimization,
lacking any unobvious or unexpected results.” The examiner
likewise acknowledges (answer, page 6) that Permut is
“expressly silent as to the step of checking for proper
insertion,” but nevertheless concludes (answer, page 6) that
“such a step would have been considered inherent to the
assembly thereof.” If such a step is not inherent, then the
examiner indicates (answer, pages 6 and 7) “it would have been
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007