Appeal 2006-2910
Application 10/226,586
Lindahl discloses (Fig. 1) an axially adjustable coaxial connector P1
which has a feed thru portion 2 fitting through boreholes in the wall of
package M (Lindahl, col. 2, ll. 32-49). The connector is depicted (Figs. 2a-
2c) to include a cylindrical part 1, a cylindrical flange part 2 and a projecting
part 3 (col. 2, ll. 55-61) wherein parts 2 and 3 appear to be fitted through
holes in the housing and positioned for connection with the substrate S (col.
3, ll. 29-48).
Nguyen, in a more detailed description of a similar connector, focuses
on the specific dimensions of portions 12 and 14 that are fitted through the
bore hole in the package wall or extended into the package for connection
with substrate 40 (col. 4, ll. 27-36 and ll. 53-55).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013