Appeal No. 2005-0844 6
Application No. 10/397,807
the manner illustrated in Figure 6 of McCarthy, even though no such opening or cord
notch is expressly described. In this obviousness assessment, we have presumed skill
on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Having found appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief concerning the
deficiencies of McCarthy as modified by Farrant to be unpersuasive, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1
Given appellants’ grouping of the claims (brief, page 5), and the fact that each of
the independent claims on appeal includes the same argued limitation regarding “a
lower housing having bottom access opening,” it follows from the foregoing that claims 2
1We also observe that, notwithstanding appellants’ assertions in the brief and
reply brief of an advantage of the invention being associated with routing of wiring
through the bottom of the housing and not the back of the housing, or through the
bottom of the housing and then through the worksurface, we find no disclosure in the
present application concerning any such use of the structure therein or any such
advantage to be derived therefrom. According to the specification (page 4, line 23
through page 5, line 2), the grommet mount hole (44) in the lower housing member (28)
provides for an “alternative mounting method” of the power/communication module (16)
to worksurface (14) by allowing clamping through the grommet mount hole (44). There
is simply no disclosure of routing wiring through the bottom of the housing as appellants
now contend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007