Appeal No. 2002-1210
Application No. 09/483,018
8-16 of Petit (answer, page 9), actually relates to the
desirability of direct connection without any wiring between the
boards. Whereas, as discussed above, Lyon includes a multi-layer
signal structure which requires that the terminating signals be
routed to matrix crosspoint switches which are later converted to
differential signals and further routed to an equalizer for
balancing (col. 10, lines 47-59). Therefore, we find no reason
or suggestion for combining various teachings from these
references, as set forth by the examiner, to arrive at the
appellant’s claimed invention other than hindsight knowledge
derived from Appellant’s own disclosure. As noted above, the use
of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible.
Thus, there is no suggestion or motivation for combining the
references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Therefore, as
the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims
1, 7 and 18, nor of claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 19-22
dependent thereon, over Petit, Hughes and Lyon cannot be
sustained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1-4, 6-11, 13, 14 and 18-22 over Petit, Hughes and Lyon and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007