Appeal No. 98-1238
Application No. 08/115,187
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in the following manner:4
Claims 1-8 as being unpatentable over Knell in view of
Huehnel.
Claim 9 as being unpatentable over Knell in view of
Huehnel and either Brislin or Uhrin.
Both of these rejections are bottomed on the examiner's
view that it would have been obvious to make the wire
positioning support bracket of Knell out of an insulating
material in view of the teachings of Huehnel. However, even
if we were to agree with the examiner that such a modification
of Knell would have been obvious in view of the teachings of
Huehnel, we find ourselves in agreement with the appellant's
argument on page 9 of the reply brief that the "two-piece"
hanger bar or support bracket of Knell cannot be considered to
be "an elongated flat planar strip" of material as expressly
required by independent claims 1 and 8. Knell's support
bracket includes two sections 11, 12 that slidably engage one
another in a telescoping manner. Each
4On page 3 of the answer the examiner states that the
"rejection of claims 1-9 over Dunlap, Simek, Keppler, [and]
Hertensteiner as applied in the Final Rejection is withdrawn."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007