Appeal No. 2002-1589
Application 09/280,180
25 on the basis of Kund and Chou, we note that the only
difference indicated by the examiner is that Kund (Figs. 6-9)
“fails to show the cable terminating structure as set forth in
claims 23-25" (final rejection, page 6). The examiner has made
no attempt to inform us as to the differences between Kund (Figs.
6-9) and the subject matter of appellant’s claims 1 and 6 through
17 on appeal.
To account for the cable terminating structure set forth in
claims 23-25 on appeal and missing from Kund, the examiner turns
to Chou. Chou addresses a re-attachable safety connector (e.g.,
Figs. 13-16) used in conjunction with pull chains like those used
for opening or closing a pair of blinds (col. 3, lines 8-13).
The problem confronted by Chou is the need to decrease the
likelihood of hanging or strangulation which may occur should the
pull chain be within reach of a small child who might
inadvertently become tangled with the pull chain or blind cords
associated therewith. As noted in column 7 of Chou, the re-
attachable safety connector (411) is formed of a molded plastic
such as polypropylene and constructed in such a manner that at
least a portion of the connector adjacent the slots (415) has a
flexibility which will easily release the ball of a pull chain
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007