Appeal No. 2006-0542 Page 6
Application No. 10/054,083
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "lever mechanism
to apply a lever force on the card during insertion of the card in the slot of the connector.
. . ." Besides reciting similar limitations, claim 11 also specifies "acutating the lever
mechanism. . . ." Giving the representative claims their broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require a lever for applying a force to a card during insertion
of the card in the slot of a connector and actuation of that lever.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Massingill, at *3. The question
of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007