Ex parte RODRIGUES et al. - Page 2




                Appeal No. 98-3293                                                                                                        
                Application 08/650,417                                                                                                    


                canceled.                                                                                                                 



                        Appellants’ invention relates to a spacer for use in spacing a cable (e.g., 50 in Figure 5) from a                

                support member (e.g., 60).  A copy of representative claim 1, as it appears in the Appendix to                            

                appellants’ brief, is attached to this decision.                                                                          



                       The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                        

                McSherry et al. (McSherry)                               4,562,982               Jan.   7, 1986                           
                Murphy                                                   4,899,963               Feb. 13, 1990                            


                        Claims 1 through 3, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                       

                McSherry.                                                                                                                 



                        Claims 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                

                McSherry in view of Murphy.                                                                                               



                        Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to the above-noted                    

                rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the                           

                rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed April 27, 1998) for the                      


                                                                    2                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007