Appeal 2007-2577
Application 90/006,344
associates with the second connecting member). Prazoff argues, however,
that Lin's conductors 242 (in plug 21) do not extend outwardly from second
connecting member.
Although this argument is styled as separate, it relies on a limitation in
claim 1. We explained in the context of claim 1 that Prazoff's construction
of the second connecting member is unduly narrow. The entire second
connecting member can include subunits. The examiner associates the
second connecting member with Lin's connecting plug 20a, which includes
both plug 21 and connecting cylinder 23. When properly construed,
Prazoff's second connecting member limitation reads on Lin's connecting
plug 20a, which includes sheltered terminal 242 (projecting from plug 21)
and a shelter 232 integrally extending from cylinder 23.
When claim 3 is properly construed as broadly as is reasonable in
view of Prazoff's specification, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
examiner's finding that claim 3 was anticipated.
OBVIOUSNESS
In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such
secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible
hindsight.41
41 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval
in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013