Appeal No. 204-2024 Page 3
Application No. 10/138,716
that the appellant failed to provide evidence that there was a structural difference
between the connectors disclosed in the two anticipatory references. This was basic to
the decision to sustain all four rejections.
The appellant has set forth four alleged errors committed by this panel of the
Board in the Request for Rehearing. The first of these is that we erred in failing to
review the matter “as a person skilled in the art,” who would have known that an
extruded member “comprises less stress than a non-extruded member which is bent
into a formed shape” (page 2). However, from our perspective there is no evidence in
the record to support such a conclusion. The appellant has referred us to two portions
of the text on page 10 of the specification for such support. The first (lines 10 and 11) is
that “[d]ue to the use of compression technology, the first and second sections 14, 16
can be range taking.” There is no correlation between this statement and the process of
extrusion, and we thus are at a loss to appreciate its relevance to the error on our part
that the appellant is alleging here. The second (lines 20-31) begins by stating
“[b]ecause of the extrusion process, the present invention can provide a connector
which can provide a very high-quality connection,” and goes on to explain that “because
only two connections are being made rather than four, installed connectors can be more
resistant to mechanical stress and long-term corrosion with a connector incorporating
features of the present invention.” This passage fails to support the appellant's
argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there is a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007