Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 7
Application No. 09/899,919
appellants' argument, the limitations do not require that the removal be "towards the
transverse direction of the cord." (Reply Br. at 4.)
b. 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)).
Here, Herrmann "relates to a fiber-optic connector having a connector housing
and a fiber holding clip, which can be introduced into the connector housing in order to
retain a fiber-optic cable." (Col. 1, ll. 6-9.) "As can be discerned in FIG. 2, the fiber
holding clip 10 is of U-shaped design. The limb 11 on the cable side 5 is likewise of U-
shaped design with two limbs (FIG. 3). These two limbs pierce the insulating sheath 7
of the fiber-optic cable end 6. As a result, the fiber-optic cable end 6 will be retained in
the fiber receptacle hole 5 of the connector housing 2." (Col. 2, ll. 43-50). Because the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007