Appeal 2006-2599
Application 10/199,986
appears to duplicate these arguments among these independent claims. No
arguments are presented as to any dependent claim on appeal.
Even through we affirm the rejection of the claims on appeal, we do
not do so for any rationale of the Examiner based upon mere duplication of
parts. This portion of the Examiner’s reasoning, such as at page 4 of the
answer, appears to brute force argue that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have duplicated the single cantilever 22 in his various figures of
Yuzawa based upon a reasoning that indicates the mere duplication of
essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The
Examiner appears to base this reasoning upon a consideration of Yuzawa
alone. Mere duplication of parts is an older per se rule of unpatentability
that is highly disfavored in recent case law since it basically eliminates a
need for fact specific analysis of claims and the prior art. See e.g. In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Independently of any per se rule of unpatentability, the Examiner’s
rationale expressed at page 4 of the answer “in order to have more security
between the connector and the mounting opening” appears to be
presumptuous and not based upon any teachings or suggestions within
Yuzawa alone. From our review of this reference there appears to be no
apparent basis for the artisan to have duplicated this reference’s cantilever
element 22.
On the other hand, we do sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal
based upon the additional teachings and suggestions of Lucius as best
expressed by the Examiner’s rationale at page 7 of the Answer for:
providing another latching arm (22) on an opposite side of the
Yuzawa’s connector or the connector with two latching arms on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013