Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
computer ground wire in the Herwig/Flannery combination), providing a teaching of a cable
having such a computer ground wire in Tsai, and providing a reason why the skilled artisan
would have been led to modify the references to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter
(“proving a compact and clean wiring in said housing”). See pages 19-20 of the answer.
Appellant has provided no specific reason for alleging an error in the examiner’s rationale.
With regard to the Group VIII claim 14, the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness by applying Herwig, Flannery, and Tsai as before, recognizing that these
references lack a teaching of the plurality of wires comprising a “twisted pair,” and applying
Decuir (Figure 6) for such a teaching, finding that it would have been obvious to make the
combination “for the advantage of supporting high speed version of USB,” citing column 5,
lines 5-7, of Decuir. (Answer-page 20). Appellant has indicated no specific error in the
examiner’s reasoning.
With regard to the Group IX claim 15, the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness by applying Herwig, Flannery, and Tsai as before, recognizing that this
combination did not explicitly teach a plurality of signal wires comprising a “fiber optic
channel,” and applying Sanchez (Figure 2A) for a teaching of an electro-optic interface
system having such signal wires. The examiner reasoned that the artisan would have been
led to make the combination “for the advantage of providing an electro-optic system of
operation for communicating high aped [sic, speed] digital signals between two or more
electronic systems (See Sanchez, col. 1, lines 57-60) without spreading electromagnetic
noise, which is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of fiber optical communication”
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007