Appeal No. 2000-2266
Application No. 09/069,700
disclosed in the specification, as requiring “ . . . two lines
per signal and information is transferred by detecting either a
polarity or a magnitude of a voltage difference between the two
signal lines.” (Specification, page 9, lines 27-29).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Lynch, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 23, nor of claims 2, 3, 9,
10, 16, 17, 24, and 25 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-21, and 26-29 based
on Lynch alone, we do not sustain this rejection as well. In
addressing the various claim limitations which specify various
sizes and shapes of the split pin arrangement, the Examiner
suggests (Answer, page 3) that the various claimed configurations
“ . . . are considered obvious design choices.” For all of the
reasons discussed supra, however, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since Lynch lacks any
teaching or suggestion of a split pin connector structure in
combination with a differential signal pair conductor
arrangement, a feature present in each of independent claims 1,
8, 15, 22, and 23.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007