Appeal No. 1998-2490
Application 08/434,263
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to the rejection of these claims, i.e.,
dependent claims 23 to 25, 27, and independent claim 28, the
Examiner has added Yiin to McCormick. However, Yiin relates
to a “clip device” and has nothing to do with arresting the
movement of a computer mouse cord. We find that Yiin, even if
properly combinable with McCormick, does not cure the
deficiency noted above in McCormick in regard to claim 22.
All these claims each at least contain the limitations of
claim 22. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 23 to 25, 27 and 28 over McCormick and
Yiin.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over McCormick. Further, we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 23 to
25, 27 and 28 over McCormick and Yiin.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007