Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 13
Application No. 09/108,687
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner equates elements 12, 13, and 14 of Goerlich to the claimed
housing, (Examiner's Answer at 5), as aforementioned. For its part, the reference
describes these elements as "three substantially wedge-shaped sections 12, 13 and
14," col. 5, ll. 4-5, of "a spring contact block 10. . . ." Id. at ll. 1-2.
The examiner then points to Figure 4 of Goerlich to show the claimed
"detachable wall." (Examiner's Answer at 5.) Although the Figure may show walls, its
walls are not part of the spring contact block 10. To the contrary, "FIG. 4 shows a
shielded pin contact block 36 comprising a synthetic material plug body 37. . . ." Col. 6,
ll. 29-30.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007