Appeal 2007-1972
Application 11/141,758
The foregoing considerations should be sufficient to demonstrate the
unpatentability of claims of the scope of instant claim 1 (requiring “a cover
comprising doors over access paths” to “at least five” signal connection
devices), or even broader claim 12 (requiring “a door” positioned over “at
least one” of the five signal connection devices).
Perhaps in an abundance of caution, the Examiner provides a
reference showing doors over access paths to telecommunication jacks in a
poke-thru fitting (Bambardekar). The Examiner finds that all elements of
instant claim 1 (and claim 12) are found in Bambardekar and Bonilla, and
concludes that the teachings of the references considered together show that
the artisan would have found the claimed subject matter as a whole to be
obvious.
A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements for their
intended purpose. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its intended purpose in
combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed). “[W]hen a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-96 (2007) (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Appellant argues, in defense of claim 1, that “[a]ttempting to add
additional jacks from Bonilla to Bambardekar would render Bambardekar
inoperable for its intended purpose.” (Appeal Br. 7.) Appellant’s position
reflects a misapprehension (or mischaracterization) of the rejection applied
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013