Appeal No. 2005-2560
Application No. 10/123,447
Appellant argues that the teachings of Loudermilk teach away from the
placement of LED’s in electrical communication with the network wiring due to EMF
radiation or transfer and that special shielding is needed. (Brief at pages 5-6.) We
agree with appellant that Loudermilk tends to teach away from the modification
proposed by the examiner due to EMF considerations and also to the replacement of
LED’s. While we find the teachings of Fincher quite good and convincing alone, we find
no suggestion to replace the reuseable LED’s which plug into the jacks while the
connected wires are still in place in the jack so that the “permanently installed” LED may
be read. Additionally, we find that the method of testing set forth in independent claim 7
is remarkably similar to the methodology of Fincher, but for the step of providing a patch
panel having the permanent installed indicator lamps in communication with the wiring
pairs. Here, we do not find that the step of providing the patch panel limits the method
of identifying the cabling system. But for the step of causing the light on the patch panel
to light, we find the method to be taught and fairly suggested by Fincher. Yet, the
examiner has not bridged that gap in the prior art to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness and we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection since a prima facie case
has not been initially established for independent claims 1, 7, and 12 and their
dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007