Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
lines 3-6) that the clip (36) “can be pulled open and a cable can be slipped thereunder in
such a fashion that the cable clip 36 will retain the terminal end of the cable against the
outer face of the outer flange 32.” Clearly, the cable clip of the pay-out tube in Fore and the
cable retainer associated with appellants’ pay-out tube defined in claims 10 and 22 on
appeal are significantly different from one another both structurally and functionally. As
appellants urge in the brief, the clip of Fore is not a section of a surface, defined by a slit in
the surface; it is expressly described as a member formed on the outer face of the outer
flange (32) and spaced apart from the outer surface, that holds a cable or wire by pressing it
against the outer surface.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fore.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 10 through 16 and 22 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fore in view of Heyman. In this instance, the
examiner has taken the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention to use the cable container and two-piece pay-out
tube described in Fore in association with a bushing like that in Heyman mounted in an
aperture in a panel as taught in Heyman so as to retain and protect a cable or wire removed
from the container of Fore and passed through a wall or panel during installation of the
cable or wire. Although appellants urge that there is no motivation to combine the teachings
of Fore and Heyman, we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the invention as described in Fore and that described in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007