Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
the level of skill in the art is high, the Board must identify specifically the principle, known
to one of ordinary skill, that suggests the claimed combination.” At page 8 of our decision,
we identified the principle that artisans would have recognized that the USB hub must be
powered from some source. Having teachings, from Herwig and Flannery, that a power
source may be in the USB cable, internal to the USB hub, or within the same housing as the
USB hub, the skilled artisan would have been led to simply connect the already existing
power supply 112, in Herwig, to the USB hub 114 as an alternative to the internal power
source suggested by Flannery. We therefore concluded that the claimed combination was
clearly suggested in the prior art and appellant has not alleged any particular error in our
rationale in the request for rehearing.
At page 11 of the principal brief, appellant also cited Kotzab for the principle that
“[P]articular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of
the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner
claimed.” Again, reference to our opinion, at page 8, as explained supra, does indicate, in
our view, particular findings as to the reason skilled artisans would have been led to modify
one reference in accordance with the teachings of the other, in order to arrive at the instant
claimed subject matter. Again, appellant has pointed to no perceived error in our reasoning.
With regard to the claims of Group IV (8 and 38, with claim 8 being representative)
and Group VII (13 and 40, with claim 13 being representative), these claims define the cable
as comprising various wires, including a “device power wire,” a “device ground wire,” a
together.
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007