Appeal No. 96-4018
Application 08/307,328
housing by providing additional support to
the housing. [Answer, pages 4 and 5.]
The appellant disagrees noting that, while Logsdon shows
a cable clamp, Cummings is directed to a railroad spike. From
the appellant's perspective there is no suggestion to combine
the teachings of the references in the manner proposed by the
examiner. In support of this position the appellant has
attached Exhibit A to the brief which, in Fig. 2, shows the
railroad spike of Cummings holding a rail R to a railroad tie
T in its "installed" position for the purpose of emphasizing
the disparate manner in which Cummings' railroad spike is
used. Even if the teachings of the references were combined,
the appellant asserts that they would be combined in the
manner depicted in Fig. 1 of Exhibit A, which shows the arm or
bridge member c extending away from the housing 12 of
Logsdon's clip (as distinguished from extending over the
housing in such a manner so as to contact the top and front
surfaces thereof as set forth in claim 1).
According to the examiner, however:
It is the extended arm of Cummings what
[sic, that] provides the securing means
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007