Appeal No. 2006-2766
Application No. 10/635,174
After reviewing Yi, we agree with Appellants that the area defined by the
dotted line 30 in Figure 8 of Yi does not correspond to a housing including an
accommodation chamber to hold the support plate with the USB couplings
attached to it. What the Examiner characterizes as the claimed housing in Yi is
actually the outer boundary defining the non-conductive material used for
encapsulation of the connector area (Figure 8; col. 4, ll. 58-64). Since the
encapsulating material fills the entire space around the connectors and forms a
solid housing, we find the Examiner’s argument (Answer 6) that the housing 30 of
Yi has to have a chamber for accommodating the support plate 16 to be
unpersuasive and unsupported by the evidence of record.
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to combine Shiu
with Yi, as held by the Examiner, the combination would still fall short of teaching
or suggesting the housing including an accommodation chamber. We note that the
other independent claim 10 also recites the same type of housing. Accordingly, as
the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, we cannot
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 10 and their dependent claim
8 over Yi and Shiu.
Regarding claim 11, we note that the Examiner further relies on Capper for
teaching a mounting flange. However, the Examiner points to no teachings, nor do
we find any, in Capper that would have overcome the deficiencies of Yi and Shiu,
as discussed above. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11 over Yi, Shiu,
and Capper cannot be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013