Appeal No. 96-3407
Application 08/325,549
the physical location of the end the elongated flexible
member, i.e., that the end of this member "extends through the
cavity and through the second access hole." As to the
examiner's criticism of claim 18 (line 7), we are of the
opinion that the phrase "for freely resting and supporting the
spool upon the base" to be relatively clear in defining that
the bearing means supports the spool in such a fashion that
the spool rests freely on the base. While the examiner is
correct in noting that the word "of" should be inserted after
"exterior" in line 1 of claim 33, this omission does not
obscure the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 33 and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harrill in view of
Chong, the examiner has taken the position that it would have
been obvious to provide the storage device of Harrill with a
foot plate in view of the teachings of Chong. However, even
if we were to agree with the examiner that Chong fairly
teaches a "foot plate" and that it would have been obvious to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007