Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 14
Application No. 08/400,129
defined in claims 2 and 3, this statement was clearly meant to
mean only that the additional limitations set forth in claims
2 and 3 are met by the teachings of Alexander. Thus, the
subject matter of claims 2 and 3 are rendered obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 on the same basis as set forth above.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
Claim 7
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Claim 7 reads as follows:
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein said tether
comprises an inner core of a plurality of linearly
resilient strands, and an outer linearly extendable,
fabric sheath.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 16-17) that the true
tether in both of Alexander's disclosed embodiments is line 14
which is clearly nonresilient. We do not agree for the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007