Appellants in Jakob win on missing element case
We agree with Appellants that at best, “[a] combination of Skof[l]janec and Case would lead to a housing for an ECU, where an opening leading to the inside of the housing (see Fig. 8 of Skof[l]janec) would be covered by knockout plugs in the sense of Case.” Br. 8. Thus, as stated by Appellants, Skofljanec’s “openings that are used to fix the housing (in the sense of the ‘attachment places’ of the present invention) do NOT lead to the inside of the housing,” and “there is no indication to cover these openings.” Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 3, 9, and 10, and claims 4, 5, and 11 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Skofljanec and Case.