Ex parte COHEN - Page 6

          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.                              

          Lawrence J. Staab               )                                           
               Administrative Patent Judge     )                                      
                         Jennifer D. Bahr                ) BOARD OF                   
                         Administrative Patent Judge     )   APPEALS AND              
                                                  )  INTERFERENCES                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007