Appeal No. 2005-2753
Application No. 09/730,238
record in support of a motivation to combine the references, it is not persuasive in view of
the rationale set forth in our opinion, and above, a rationale, we hasten to point out, which
has
not been convincingly rebutted by appellant’s showing, or even an allegation, of any specific
error in our reasoning.
Only arguments actually made by appellant have been considered by this Board.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)].
D.
Appellant alleges that our opinion misapprehended appellant’s argument that there is
no clear and particular evidence of a suggestion or motivation to form the proposed
combinations of references.
We did not misapprehend appellant’s argument. The argument simply did not
specifically point out the errors in the examiner’s rationale as to why there was evidence to
suggest the proposed combination. For example, following the examiner’s rationale, 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
-18-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007