Appeal No. 2004-2312 Page 6
Application No. 10/135,517
adaptor plate 58 and face plate 40a of Schubring with a tongue and groove sliding
arrangement as taught by Volansky. It is not apparent to us how the objective of
Volansky of providing a dimensionally minimal enclosure would in any way discourage3
one of ordinary skill in the art from making such a substitution of one mounting
arrangement with a well known alternative mounting arrangement.
Appellant’s argument on pages 7-8 of the brief that, even if the references were
combined, the Volansky reference fails to cure a deficiency of Schubring, appears to
have overlooked the teaching of Volansky of a bezel for directly supporting a connector
or connectors which are secured thereto (column 10, lines 39-42). With the connectors,
which are connected to the ends of the cables, secured to the bezel, the ends of the
cables comprise the bezels, which are selectively received in respective slots, as called
for in claim 30.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 20, 30,
38, 41, 44 and 56 is affirmed. As appellant has not separately argued dependent claims
21-29, 31-37, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 45-55 apart from the independent claims from which
they depend, the rejection of these claims is affirmed as well. See In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
3 A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31
USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007