Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 18 Application No. 10/075,786 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 36 to 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Rejection 4 We sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu in view of Holland and Holt. 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. 10-11) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the applied prior art for such a modification.Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007