Appeal 2007-2450
Application 10/634,871
of the application, USB ports were used for connecting peripheral devices to
a computer, not for connecting components within the computer.2 Thus,
Appellant contends (Br. 16-17) that it would not have been obvious to
substitute USB ports for the ports of Meng. The last issue, therefore, is
whether it would have been obvious to use USB ports in the connector of
Meng.
Although Appellant has not presented any convincing evidence that
USB ports were not used for connecting elements within the computer, we
find that since Meng is directed to connecting two daughter boards to a
motherboard, USB ports would not apply. Accordingly, it would not have
been obvious to substitute USB ports for Meng's ports, and we will not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 3, 4, 8 through 10, 13,
16, and 18 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed as to claim 4 and
affirmed as to the remaining claims.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
2 Appellant should note that Wikipedia, the source of evidence provided by
Appellant, is considered unreliable because it is a source that "anyone" can
edit.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013