Appeal No. 1998-0127
Application No. 08/609,670
teaching may have additional extraneous features which are not
claimed, the examiner is incorrect to hold that such
extraneous features are always irrelevant to the consideration
of obviousness. The prior art must teach the claimed details
of the C-shaped cable guide and protective channel member
regardless of the additional, extraneous features present in
the prior art. Here, the cover plate in Kunkle defeats the
very purpose of the claimed channel member being partially
open sided and C-shaped and actually prevents the member in
Kunkle from meeting the claimed recitation. Since the
“extraneous” feature here, the cover plate, would destroy the
very purpose and function of the claimed partially open sided
C-shaped member, the examiner should not have treated this
claim limitation as being fully met by the disclosure of
Kunkle.
Appellants argue that neither Abare or Kunkle teaches
or suggests the use of a pulley cable guide with a constant
force spring system as recited in claim 6 [brief, page 14].
As noted above, the rejection simply noted that appellants’
specification had indicated that constant force spring systems
were known. The examiner found obviousness based on his
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007