Appeal No. 2001-1454
Application No. 08/412,118
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 18 and 30
because the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. As
noted above, the examiner has the burden of initially presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The examiner cannot satisfy this burden by simply dismissing differences
between the claimed invention and the teachings of the prior art as being obvious or
well known. The examiner must present us with an evidentiary record which supports
the finding of obviousness. It does not matter how strong the examiner’s convictions
are that the claimed invention would have been obvious, or whether we might have an
intuitive belief that the claimed invention would have been obvious within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Neither circumstance is a substitute for evidence lacking in the
record. Whether there is prior art available which would render these appealed claims
unpatentable we cannot say. We can say, however, that the record presently before us
does not support the rejection as formulated by the examiner. We agree with
appellants that the evidentiary record before us does not teach or suggest the use of a
connector of any kind, much less the use of a connector connected to the remaining
components as specifically set forth in the claims. The examiner’s assertion that
Plummer suggests a connector as claimed is unsupported by the reference.
With respect to independent claim 24, appellants argue that although Fry ’848
does disclose a wire harness having different sized wire diameters and insulating
coating thicknesses, Fry ’848 does not disclose the particular wire diameter
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007