Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 26
Application No. 08/400,129
short tether, a swivel arrangement and an adjusting line as
suggested and taught by McGuckin's tether 17 having a short
tether 38, a swivel arrangement 27 and an adjusting line 21 to
provide the self evident advantage thereof.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 21-23) that (1) there is
no incentive or suggestion to have combined the teachings of
McGuckin with Alexander, and (2) the introduction of
McGuckin's short tether 38 into Alexander's tether would be
superfluous. We do not agree for the following reasons.
First, McGuckin's two part tether with swivel arrangement 27
is a known alternative to Alexander's tether and thus it would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced
Alexander's tether with McGuckin's tether 17. Second,
McGuckin's tether 17 would not be superfluous in the
Alexander's Figure 4 embodiment. Lastly, the additional
limitations of claim 10 are readable on the Figure 5
embodiment of Alexander as set forth above.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007