Appeal No. 2004-2124
Application No. 09/795,197
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for the
reasons stated infra, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues, on page 5 or the brief, that the combination of Bell and
Nakajima do not render the claimed invention obvious as the combination of the
references do not disclose that a cable is extended selectively through the cable ports
as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues, on page 6 of the brief, that Bell, the reference
the examiner cites as teaching the limitation of the cable ports, does not teach a
“housing having at least two cable ports through which the cable is extended
selectively. Rather, Bell et al. simply discloses a connection port at the sockets.” On
page 1 of the reply brief, appellant argues that the examiner’s interpretation of the claim
limitation of ports is improper, stating: “[t]he Examiner’s proffered definition would
appear to be out of context to the extent it requires a cable to pass selectively through a
connecting point. In any event, the references do not teach a cable running through
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007