Appeal No. 2005-0194 Page 4
Application No. 09/867,859
the cable during nonuse. The device includes a storage compartment 12 arranged
within the boat and means for driving the cable into and out of the compartment
according to the necessity of periodically connecting same to a stationary power source,
the cable driving device comprising a large main drive roller 25 driven by a reversible
electric motor 27. One end of the cable is permanently attached to a junction box on
the boat, while the other end includes a suitable electrical coupling 20 for connection to
a shore power outlet.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to provide a retractable power cable
and power cable handling device as taught by Neidenberg on Rubin’s boat to connect
Rubin’s battery chargers to shore power as disclosed by Rubin and illustrated in Figures
1 and 2 thereof when needed and to facilitate storage of such cable when not in use.
We appreciate appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the brief that Rubin does not
disclose a cord and Neidenberg does not disclose batteries. We see nothing in these
aspects of the references, however, which leads us to believe that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have overlooked the evident advantages and applicability of
Neidenberg’s power cable handling device on Rubin’s boat for facilitating connection to
and disconnection from shore power and storage of the cable when not in use.
Appellant points out on page 9 of the brief that Neidenberg issued in 1971,
approximately 30 years prior to the filing of appellant’s application, and that the fact that,
in that time span, no one combined a battery, battery charger and retractable cord is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007