Appeal No. 1999-1624
Application 08/834,080
from Maejima as a means for fastening the shield of the cables 108, for example, of the
Figures 7-9 showings in Brunker. There are no noted deficiencies within each of the
references of the approach already taken by Brunker for securing the shield to a
corresponding ground plate member of the respective connectors.
Indeed, we agree with the appellants’ observation that the examiner’s reasoning
appears to be based upon prohibited hindsight derived from the disclosed and claimed
invention rather than from a prospective view of the teachings and suggestions of the
references themselves. Although we agree with the examiner’s observation that "the hump
2a disclosed by Maejima could fit any type of cables" (Answer, page 5), the fact that the
references may be combinable or could have been combinable within
35 U.S.C. § 103 is not the proper test for reaching a conclusion of obviousness. Since we
can not conclude that it would have been obvious, the proper analytical approach within 35
U.S.C. §103, for the artisan to have modified Brunker with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007