Appeal No. 2000-0464
Application No. 09/023,198
prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Furthermore, "[t]hat knowledge can not come from the
applicant's invention itself." Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447, 24
USPQ2d at 1446. Thus, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness.
We note that Glomb does suggest (column 2, lines 52-60)
providing cavities 4 around posts 3. However, Glomb teaches
that the cavities are to collect chips that arise due to the
prescribed tolerances between the diameter of the posts and
the diameter of the corresponding bores for press fitting the
connector to the circuit board. As pointed out by appellant
(Brief, page 5), since AAPA connects the connector to the
printed circuit board using screws rather than by press
fitting, the skilled artisan would not have expected any chips
to arise and, therefore, would not have used Glomb's cavities
with AAPA.
Regarding the rejection of the claims over Glomb alone,
the claims require both a hollow groove portion around the
base of the guide rib and also "a screw hole, for fixing said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007