Appeal 2007-0720
Application 10/410,993
FINDINGS OF FACT
Harting describes “a holding frame for holding plug connector
modules.” Harting, Abstract, col. 1, ll. 1-2. Harting further teaches that the
disclosed holding frame is suitable to hold “various plug connector
modules,” and further discloses a plug connector module that is “provided
with contact clips 13 for the introduction of contact elements.” (Harting,
col. 1, l. 13-14, col. 2, ll. 54-57, Figures 3). However, Harting does not
contain any description for the contact elements and even recites that “no
further details” relating to the disclosed contact elements or modules are
represented. (Harting col. 2, l. 56).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claimed invention is unpatentable as obvious “if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002); In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Even when
obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing
of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In
re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir.
2000), citing B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Breaking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d
1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
While “the common sense of those skilled in the art” may be relevant
to an obviousness inquiry, cf. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013