Appeal No. 2006-2789
Application No. 10/215,217
Clarke, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to replace the adapter 22 of DE ‘297 with the
adapter 10 of Clarke to simplify “chang[ing] the association between any PBX (or
CO) line and the station” [answer, pages 6 and 7].
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not disclose a two-part
connector set as claimed, but rather teaches a one-piece adapter [brief, pages
10 and 11; reply brief, page 7]. The examiner responds that the combination of
DE ‘297 and Clarke shows a two-part connector set [answer, page 10]. The
examiner further notes that the claims do not recite a two-part adapter, but rather
only recite an “adapter” [answer, pages 10 and 11].
Appellants further argue that the plug connector 17 of DE ‘297 is not an
adapter, but rather a male connector [reply brief, page 8]. The examiner notes
that element 17/22 in DE ‘297 is structurally similar to the claimed adapter and
nothing in appellants’ specification precludes the examiner’s interpretation
[answer, page 9]. Appellants also contend that no motivation exists to mount the
adapter 10 of Clarke into a housing as the examiner suggests since that would
render Clarke inoperative for its intended purpose [reply brief, page 8].
We will sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection. Initially, we note
that appellants have not separately argued independent claims 1 and 8, but
instead have argued the independent claims (along with their respective
dependent claims) as a group. Accordingly, we will select the broadest
independent claim – claim 8 – as representative. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007