Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
modifying the Leleu device. However, even if the ordinarily
skilled artisan were to modify Leleu in view of Bourret’s
teachings, the claimed subject matter would not result. In
this regard, neither of the applied references discloses,
suggests or implies a control lever for controlling a cable
wherein the distance between the cable connector and the lever
axis first decreases and then increases during the stroke of
the lever. It follows that we will not sustain the standing
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-14 as being unpatentable
over Leleu in view of Bourret.
In summary, the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, (rejection b) is reversed as
to claims 2, 6-8, 12 and 13, but is affirmed as to claims 3,
5, 9-11 and 14. All other rejection are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
-17-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007