Appeal No. 2004-2124
Application No. 09/795,197
in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the
nature of the problem to be solved.” In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1280, 64 USPQ2d
1801, 1810 (Fed. Cir. 2002, citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ 1313,
1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Thus, we find that the skilled artisan would be
motivated to use Michaelis’ port, through which a cable extends, in the radiation image
recording device of Nakajima to allow the cable from controller (item 90) to enter the
housing. Regarding the limitation of “extending selectively,” we note that Nakajima
suggests that at least two cables enter housing (item 1) and that Michaelis teaches
numerous ports. Neither of the references teaches that the cables should be arranged
in any particular order, thus, we find that the combination teaches that the cables can
be selectively extend through the ports.
Conclusion
In summary, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and in accordance with 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter a new
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
(effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007