Appeal No. 1999-2067
Application 08/911,064
any showing of connectors utilized to connect respective modules to the signal bus 54 and
power bus 56 of Figures 8 and 9. Even if we agree with the examiner's view at page 4 of
the answer that Dennis inherently includes conductive tracks and mounting means, we do
not agree with his apparent conclusion that this reference would therefore teach the
claimed first multi-pin connector. The examiner admits that Dennis is silent as to the
second connector. However, we find no such teachings of any type of connectors in
Dennis as noted earlier.
We do not agree with the examiner's view that it would have been obvious to have
modified in any way Dennis by the teachings of Hayward. The connectors of the type
required of claim 27 on appeal are not taught or suggested in this reference either. At
best, even if we were to agree with the examiner's view that it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Dennis and Hayward, the subject matter of the
two recited connectors of independent claim 27 on appeal are not taught in the
combination. Therefore, we conclude the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness of independent claim 27 on appeal. As such, we also reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 5, 7 and 8 since Pidancet does not make up for the deficiencies of the
combination of Dennis and Hayward.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007