Appeal 2007-0720
Application 10/410,993
a functional block, a wire is merely a passive component capable of only
transferring the signal, but not varying it.
In that regard, the Examiner’s assertion that “modules having
integrated functional blocks” (Examiner’s Answer 3) are well known in the
art and may be used to “vary and transfer . . . signals” cannot stand in place
of exemplary prior art or any evidence that would have suggested the
specific claimed functional blocks suitable for combination with Harting to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we find that Examiner’s rejection rests
on speculation and less than a preponderance of the evidence and thus, fails
to provide sufficient reasons for finding claim 4, as well as claims 5-9
dependent thereon, unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Harting.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013