Appeal No. 1999-1812
Application No. 08/692,761
between the sheave and the rollers).
We also note the examiner’s positions (answer, page 7)
that (1) “the prior art teaches all the features of the
claimed invention,” (2) “[t]here is no structural difference
between the claimed invention and the teachings of the prior
art taken as a whole” and (3) [t]he structures taught in the
prior art are capable of performing the intended use of easy
insertion of the cable at a midpoint rather than an end.” In
light of the above noted deficiencies in the teachings of
Naito, and in that no other prior art references are relied
upon by the examiner in support of the rejection, these
positions are not supportable.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Lawrence J. Staab )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jennifer D. Bahr ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007