Appeal No. 2005-1481
Application 10/236,601
In proposing to combine Rosen and Petrich to reject claims 1
and 8, the examiner submits that
Rosen shows the use of all the claimed invention but
fails to show the use of a helical cable wrap contained
in the spindle assembly. Petrich teaches the use of a
helical cable (35) wrap contained a spindle assembly
(46), see columns 3-8. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention to modify the spindle assembly as taught by
Petrich, in order to protect the cable from external
damage [answer, page 3].
Arguably, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have appreciated the benefit of using one or more cable wraps of
the sort disclosed by Petrich in conjunction with the panel
display disclosed by Rosen to allow the panel display to be
repositioned without damaging an audio, video and/or power input
cable. The combined teachings of these references, however,
would not have suggested locating any such cable wrap in one of
the various spindle assemblies which permit the Rosen display
panel to rotate about the A, B and C axes. The examiner’s
attempt to cure this shortcoming by characterizing the Petrich
cable wrap as being contained in spindle assembly 46 is not well
taken. Spindle or dowel 46 is an internal component of Petrich’s
cable wrap and is quite dissimilar, both structurally and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007