Appeal 2007-0720
Application 10/410,993
Inc., Slip Op. 06-1402 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2007), the ultimate consideration
depends on “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art” and the level of “ordinary skill in the art.” See 35 U.S.C.
103(a) (2002). Thus, a determination of obviousness requires us to:
1) determine the scope and content of the prior art;
2) ascertain differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
and
3) determine the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Graham v. John
Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Further, a rejection based on section 103 must rest upon a factual
basis rather than conjecture, or speculation. “Where the legal conclusion [of
obviousness] is not supported by the facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). See also In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002) and In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner does not show where the prior art teaches or suggests
modules with integrated functional block that can vary and transfer signals
and are suitable for use with Harting’s frame. While Harting indicates that
“various plug connector modules” may be included in the holding frame and
inserted in a plug connector casing (col. 1, ll. 12-15), no further suggestion
as to what elements these modules may include is provided by the reference.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the connecting wire may be considered to be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013