Appeal No. 2004-1779
Application No. 09/851,639
side of the at least one bore) so as to provide for a
more sturdy holder by allowing the split ring to be
more securely maintained in a desired position [answer,
page 6; and pages 7 and 8].
Similarly, in proposing to combine Adams ‘356 and Brown to
reject claim 8, the examiner submits that it would have been
obvious
to have modified the cross sections of the portion of
the J-hook being fitted within the transverse bore and
the transverse bore of Adams ‘356 to be square [sic,
hexagonal] cross-sections as in Brown ‘408 (such that
when the ring [sic, J-hook] is rotated within the bore
from a first to a second position, inherently every
side of the end of the ring [sic, J-hook] would be
opposite a side of the at least one bore) so as to
provide for a more sturdy holder by allowing the J-hook
to be more securely maintained in a desired position
[answer, page 6; and pages 7 and 8].
Neither Rendall nor Adams ‘356, however, conveys any
indication that it would be advantageous to more securely
maintain the split ring or hook respectively disclosed thereby in
a desired rotational position relative to the neck of the suction
cup. Moreover, while Brown teaches that the hinge disclosed
therein can be used in a number of different devices, none of
these devices, or the hinge structure in general, is particularly
relevant to the suction cup holders disclosed by Rendall or Adams
‘356. Given the structural and functional disparities
therebetween, the only suggestion for selectively combining the
suction cup holders disclosed by Rendall or Adams ‘356 and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007