Appeal No. 2000-1651
Application No. 08/871,923
support for electrical cable (claims 27 to 30), and a method
of supporting electrical cable (claims 31 and 32). They are
reproduced in the appendix of appellant's brief.1
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Bergquist 2,891,750 Jun.
23, 1959
Burke 3,406,932 Oct. 22,
1968
Mason 3,948,473 Apr. 6,
1976
Dooley 5,465,929 Nov. 14,
1995
The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows:
(1) Claims 1 to 26, 31 and 32, unpatentable over Burke in view
of Dooley and Mason.
(2) Claims 27 to 30, unpatentable over Bergquist in view of
Burke.
Rejection (1)
We will first consider this rejection as it applies to
claim 15. The structure recited in claim 15 differs from that
1 In reviewing the specification, it appears that on page
13, line 12, "have" should be --has--, and "greater" should be
--smaller--.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007