Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
Figure 3 of Herwig, where there is disclosed a USB hub and a power supply 112 internal to
the housing but external to the hub, would quickly have been led to provide a power supply
for the USB hub 114. Since a power supply would have been known as necessary to power
the USB hub 114, and there is already a power supply 112, internal to the housing but
external to the hub, the skilled artisan would have been led to connect the power supply 112
to USB hub 114 since, if a power supply is not already provided internal to the USB hub, the
power supply 112 would be the closest element from which to tap power in order to supply
the power necessary for the correct functioning of USB hub 114.
It is our view that this analysis is a clear indication of “concrete evidence” in the
record to support the findings of obviousness, within the dictates of Zurko. We note, again,
that appellant has pointed to no specific perceived error in our analysis in his request for
rehearing even though we clearly pointed out how we were applying the teachings of the
references.
Appellant cites Dembiczak and Vaeck for the proposition that there must be clear and
particular evidence of record in support of a motivation to modify Herwig according to
Flannery. Once again, our explanation at pages 7-9 of our decision, as well as our
elucidation supra, clearly explains how there is evidence in this record for combining the
teachings of Herwig and Flannery. We note again that appellant has not pointed to one
single perceived error in our analysis in his request for rehearing.
In citing Rouffet at page 11 of the principal brief, appellant recites that “[E]ven when
stand or fall together. Note pages 12-14 of the principal brief wherein appellant argues the Group I claims
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007