Appeal 2007-1972
Application 11/141,758
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 12-17, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bambardekar and Bonilla.
2. Claims 7, 9, 11, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bambardekar, Bonilla, and Castellani.
3. Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bambardekar, Bonilla, and Hadfield.
OPINION
The Examiner applies the teachings of Bambardekar and Bonilla
against claims 1-6, 12-17, and 23-25 in a § 103 rejection. We note, initially,
that Appellant’s Specification (¶ 5) cites the Bonilla patent, which discloses
eight telecommunication jacks in a poke-thru fitting, and alleges that the
telecommunication jacks in the described fitting are open to the external
environment. The Specification at paragraph 2, however, reports that
proposed certification standards require that such fittings keep scrub water
out of the portion of the fitting that houses the electrical outlet and
communication/data receptacles or jacks. Moreover, as noted in the
Specification (¶ 2), it is desirable that poke-thru fittings be designed to
prevent moisture infiltration from above the floor. The Specification does
not allege that Appellant was the one who discovered that water or excessive
moisture is detrimental to the proper functioning of electronic receptacles or
jacks.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013