Appeal No. 1997-3997
Application No. 08/559,117
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the
examiner cites Bonine as teaching a device for measuring cable
elongation or relaxation as a result of forces acting on the
cable. The examiner acknowledges, however, that Bonine fails
to teach any method for determining lengths L1 and L2 [final
rejection]. The examiner also acknowledges that Bonine does
not disclose various specific structural details of the claims
as argued by appellants in the brief [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to each of the acknowledged differences between
the invention of claims 1 and 8
and the teachings of Bonine, the examiner finds that each of
these differences would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan [id.].
Appellants point to each of the structural differences
between claims 1 and 8 and the teachings of Bonine and argue
that the examiner has simply dismissed all the differences
between the claimed invention and the teachings of the prior
art as obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 without
any teaching or suggestion within the applied references
[brief, pages 7-9].
Appellants argue that the examiner’s rejection is simply not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007