Appeal No. 1998-0127
Application No. 08/609,670
channel member. The examiner asserts that it would have been
obvious to modify the Abare bare tape with the protective
member of Kunkle. With respect to the spring feature, the
examiner notes that appellants’ specification admits that
constant force springs were known in the art. The examiner
finds nothing unobvious in using these known devices in the
cable releasing or retracting systems of Abare or Kunkle
[answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that the examiner’s position that
Kunkle teaches a partially open C-shaped channel guide is an
erroneous finding. Appellants argue that, to the contrary,
Kunkle teaches a cable guide which is covered or sealed along
its entire length by a cover plate [brief, pages 9-10]. The
examiner responds that the cover plate in Kunkle is irrelevant
because the use of “comprising” in claim 6 permits the prior
art to have additional elements which are not claimed [answer,
page 6]. Appellants argue that the integral structure of
Kunkle cannot be ignored and selectively destroyed to meet the
claimed invention [brief, page 11]. On this point we agree
with appellants.
Although the examiner is correct that a prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007