Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 11
Application No. 08/213,933
Based on our analysis and review of Perry and independent
claim 7, it is our opinion that one difference is the
limitation
the channels being of first and second different widths
respectively, for receiving end segments of the first and
second cables respectively.
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 6) that to provide different size channels and
cables, depending on the desired use of Perry's device, is
within the scope of a skilled mechanic in the art, and
providing same would have been obvious.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 11) that the above-noted
limitation of claim 7 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. Once again, it is our
opinion that the only suggestion for modifying Perry in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitation stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure. It follows that we cannot sustain
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007