Appeal No. 1998-1962 Page 12
Application No. 08/213,933
the examiner's rejection of independent claim 7, and claims 8
to 10, 12 and 19 to 21 dependent thereon.
Claim 13
Based on our analysis and review of Perry and independent
claim 13, it is our opinion that two differences are the
limitations concerning (1) the width of the first channel
being slightly greater than the thickness of the first cable
and the width of the second channel being slightly greater
than the thickness of the second cable (the second cable is
recited to have a thickness greater than the thickness of the
first cable), and (2) adhesively bonding the first end segment
of the selected cable to the attachment plate.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined
(answer, pp. 4 and 7) that these limitations would have been
obvious for reasons previously set forth with respect to
claims 1 and 7.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 12-13) that the above-
noted limitations of claim 13 are not suggested by Perry. We
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007