Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
Heyman together, each for its own intended purpose, during installation of cable from the
container in Fore in walls or panels carrying bushings like those in Heyman.
Where we disagree with the examiner is in his conclusion that the combination of Fore
and Heyman as urged in the final rejection and answer would result in a “pay-out tube” like
that defined in claim 10 on appeal or a “pay-out tube and cable retainer” as set forth in claim
22 on appeal. In our view, both of those claims require the cable retainer to be part of the
pay-out tube itself and not a separate element used independently of the pay-out tube as is
the case in the examiner’s combination of the applied patents to Fore and Heyman. Thus,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10 and 22, or dependent
claims 11 through 13, 23 and 24, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 14 is directed to a method of securing an end of a cable exteriorly of a
cable container housing a cable winding, the method comprising the steps of
threading cable from the winding through a wall of the cable container;
and retaining an end portion of the cable outside of the cable container
by inserting the end portion of the cable through a slitted surface that
defines at least two sections.
Like the examiner, it appears to us that one of ordinary skill in the art using the invention
as described in Fore and that described in Heyman together, each for its own intended
purpose, during installation of cable from the container in Fore in walls or panels carrying
bushings like those in Heyman would naturally perform the method as broadly set forth in
appellants’ claim 14. That is, during cable installation, one would thread cable from the
winding in Fore’s cable container through a wall (42) of the cable container (via the pay-out
tube (10) of Fore), and subsequently retain an end portion of the cable outside of the cable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007