Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 13
Application No. 09/899,919
there is no teaching for engagement counterparts on the housing. . . ." (Reply Br. at 3-
4.)
a. Claim Construction
"Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part."
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc). Here, claim 1 further recites in pertinent part the following
limitations: "said housing has stopper retaining portions for holding said plate-like
portion of said stopper, said stopper retaining portions engaging a retaining side of said
plate-like portion and having a cross-section perpendicular to the cord insertion direction
of said optical fiber cord. . . ." Figures 8A – 8C of the appellant's specification,
moreover, show the "stopper" as a clip. Reading the representative claim in view of the
specification, the limitations require a retaining part for engaging a retaining pip of a clip,
thereby holding the clip in place, wherein the retaining part is perpendicular to the
insertion direction of the aforementioned fiber optical cord.
b. Obviousness Determination
"'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.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007