Appeal No. 2005-0564
Application No. 09/732,787
urging this argument, Appellant ignores the knowledge of ordinary
skill in the art, the need for gripping these kind of connecters
for connecting them to the electrical contacts and the general
teaching of Gerrans, as shown in figures 1 and 2. A motivation
to combine prior art references may be found in the nature of the
problem to be solved. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270,
1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686,1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, as argued by
the Examiner (answer, page 5), the contoured shape of the molded
portion of Gerrans “provides a smoother gripping by avoiding
substantially sharp or pointy edges that may be uncomfortable to
a user’s hand” and easier holding of the connector may be
achieved.
In view of the analysis above, we find the Examiner’s
reliance on the combination of the admitted prior art and Gerrans
to be reasonable and sufficient to support a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
4 as well as claim 7, grouped with claim 4 as standing or falling
together (brief, page 4), over the admitted prior art and Gerrans
is sustained.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 6 and 8, we note
Appellants’ only argument with respect to Hauchard’s failure in
making up for the alleged deficiency in the combination of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007