Ex Parte Fall - Page 6




                Appeal No. 2006-0125                                                                                                           
                Application 10/086,316                                                                                                         

                container by inserting the end portion through a slitted surface of a bushing like that in                                     
                Heyman, mounted in a wall or panel, which bushing defines at least two deflectable sections                                    
                (7) that grasp the cable, protect it against abrasion, and further tend to center the cable.                                   
                Contrary to appellants’ assertions in the brief (pages 11-12), claim 14 does not recite that                                   
                the cable end is retained in a “pay-out tube retainer,” or that the end of the cable retained is                               
                the end of the cable dispensed from the cable container, which is only secured by the                                          
                retainer following dispensing of a preceding length of cable. There is no pay-out tube                                         
                required in claim 14 and thus no “pay-out tube retainer.” Nor does claim 14 require that the                                   
                retained end portion of the cable be that remaining after a preceding length of cable has                                      
                been dispensed, i.e., the end portion of the cable still protruding from the wall of the cable                                 
                container after a preceding length of cable has been cut off. In our view, the broad language                                  
                of claim 14 encompasses retaining an end portion of a length of cable already cut from the                                     
                cable threaded through the wall of the cable container, as would be the case in Heyman.                                        
                Since appellants have not demonstrated any error in the examiner’s obviousness                                                 
                rejection of claim 14, we will sustain the rejection of that claim, and dependent claims 15                                    
                and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  Appellants’ brief at page 4 indicates that claims 14-16                                     
                stand or fall together. Thus, claims 15 and 16 fall with claim 14.                                                             
                The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that of claims 17 through 19 and 21                                    
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bass in view of Newman. In this case,                                      
                the examiner has determined that Bass discloses a pay-out tube used with a cable box                                           
                including cable or wire (13) arranged in a stacked figure-8 configuration, wherein the pay-                                    
                out tube comprises a molded synthetic resin tube portion (33) for receiving and guiding                                        

                                                                         6                                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007