Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 13
Application No. 09/860,423
The appellants' argument is unpersuasive. First, there is ample motivation to
modify Andrieu based on the teachings of Holland as set forth previously. Second, both
Andrieu and Kite provide sufficient motivation to have made it obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the protective
cover as a plurality of bands to provide cable breakouts as shown in Figure 3 of Kite.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10
to 12 and 23 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Rejection 3
We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In this rejection, the examiner proposes to combine the closure device of Andrieu
as modified by Holland, and the tubular rubber member of Holt to obtain a protective
cover with a fabric hood fastened to at least one end. The appellants argue (brief, pp.
9-10) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the applied prior art for such
a modification.
The appellants' argument is unpersuasive. It is our opinion that Holt's teaching of
end cap 19 (see Figure 6D) provides sufficient motivation to have made it obvious at the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007