Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 9
Application No. 08/213,933
Claim 1
Based on our analysis and review of Perry and independent
claim 1, it is our opinion that the only difference is the
limitation
an adhesive means securing said first end segment of the
flexible cable in the channel by bonding to the cable and
the attachment plate.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 4 and 5) that the use of adhesive as a securing
means is conventional and that it would have been an obvious
mechanical expedient to adhesively bond Perry's cable 44
within a passage 42 as a substitute for Perry's ferrule 48.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-7, and reply brief,
pp. 1-2) that the claimed adhesive means is not suggested by
Perry. We agree. The examiner's determination of obviousness
has not been supported by any evidence that would have led an
artisan to arrive at the claimed invention. In that regard,
while Perry does disclose the use of liquid epoxy adhesive
material in a hole in the peripheral surface of the disc 54,
it is our view that this would not have provided any
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007