Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made
the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fore, we note that the examiner’s statement of this rejection is found on
pages 2-3 of the final rejection. For the reasons set forth on pages 4-7 of the brief, we agree
with appellants that Fore does not anticipate the pay-out tube of claim 10, or the pay-out
tube and cable retainer as defined in claim 22 on appeal.
Claims 10 and 22 are both readable on the embodiment seen in Figures 7 and 8 of
appellants’ application drawings wherein a cable retainer (60) having flexible segments
(63a-63d) is part of the pay-out tube and is used to retain a cable or wire end when the
cable or wire end is inserted between or within one of the slits (62a, 62b) and further pushed
between the inner wall (11b) of the collar (12) and the exterior of the wall of the container
(49). See pages 6 and 7 of appellants’ specification.
The examiner’s reliance on Fore to teach a cable retainer of the type claimed in the
present application having “a surface divided by one or more slits that form at least two
sections with at least one of the two sections being deflectable and which deflect at least
partially open in response to the end of the cable being inserted between the sections” as in
claim 10 on appeal, and defined by similar language in claim 22, in our view, is not well
founded. Fore (col. 3, lines 66-67) specifically notes that the cable clip (36) is “formed on the
outer surface of the outer flange 32” of the locking collar (14) and, more specifically, that the
clip is preferably integrally molded with the locking collar. Fore goes on to indicate (col. 4,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007