Appeal No. 2006-1292 Page 4
Application No. 10/314,742
the examiner’s characterization of Chrones teaching that a living hinge 74 is an art
recognized equivalent structure to a conventional mechanical hinge.
The examiner’s reasoning of combinability perhaps is best stated in the summary
statement at page 7 of the Answer where the examiner notes that Chrones teaches a
cover with a space to accommodate connecting electrical conductors of the mating plug
to the electrical connectors when the cover is in a closed position, thus protecting the
electrical conductors of the mating plug from tampering. The examiner has additionally
urged the use of the living hinge of Chrones would have simplified the overall assembly
process of the header/connector. From our perspective, these conclusions of the
obviousness of combining the subject matter of Hofmann and Chrones are aptly based
upon the teachings and suggestions of Chrones as modifying the teachings which have
already been set forth in Hofmann.
To the extent appellants argue that the combination of Hofmann and Chrones
completely overlooks the purpose of the Hofmann socket cover, we consider this view
misplaced. To the extent appellants argues that the purposes of the references relied
upon by the examiner are different from the appellant’s disclosed purpose, this is not
pertinent to the issue and is essentially irrelevant if the prior art teachings would have
led the artisan to construct an arrangement having the claimed structural features. In re
Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 216 USPQ 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Kronig, 539 F.2d
1300, 190 USPQ 425 (CCPA 1976). In re Heck also indicates that the use of patents as
references is not limited to what the patentees described as their own invention. The
law of obviousness does not require that references be combined for reasons
contemplated by an inventor, but only looks to whether the motivation or suggestion to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007