Appeal No. 2006-1604 Page 11
Application No. 09/903,201
cable 4. Since the adaptor 1 is functioning as a host under the USB platform, the
connector of the USB cable 4 adjoining the USB-DSC port 14 is a Type-A connector,
and the connector of the USB cable 4 adjoining the USB-DSC 2 is a Type-B
connector. Similarly, a USB printer port 15 of the adaptor 1 is in connection with the
USB printer 3; the coupling between USB printer port 15 and USB printer 3 is a USB
cable 5. Since the adaptor 1 is functioning as a host under the USB platform, the
connector of the USB cable 5 adjoining the USB printer port 15 is a Type-A
connector, and the connector of the USB cable 5 adjoining the USB printer 3 is a
Type-B connector.
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that
the evidence adduced by the examiner is insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal. A
controller that is an integral part of a cable assembly, as discussed supra, is
not taught nor fairly suggested by the references cited by the examiner. We
therefore agree with Appellants that every limitation is not taught by the
combination of references relied upon by the examiner. Whether it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine a controller, such as that taught by Lin, with a cable
where the controller is employed “in the cable, ” as claimed is a question
which is not before us.
With respect to Group II, claims 7-9, we note that because these
claims contain all the limitations found in independent claim 1, we need not
reach the other questions presented by Appellants in the briefs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007