Appeal No. 1997-2942
Application 08/281,958
Analysis
We consider the sole claim in the case, claim 12.
Reviewing the record, we find that the Examiner, in his
rejection of the claim over Redder, Kramer, and Reuther, has
simply picked from these references various pieces recited in
the method steps of the claim and attempted to reconstruct the
claimed invention, using the invention as a blue print. None
of the references recognizes the problem being solved by
Appellants, i.e., a tubular conduit having the
capability of being twisted to increase or decrease its length
to fit the grommets at each end in the circular or non-
circular slots in the respective panels, without kinking the
conduit. None of the cited references is concerned with any
rotational movement of a conduit in order to fit a grommet at
the end of the conduit into a corresponding slot in a panel
[brief, page 8].
The Examiner, on his part, asserts [answer, page 5] that
“[i]n this case, the obviousness is based on the finding that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have common sense and
the necessary mechanical skill to employ a specific tube known
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007