Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
suggestion or motivation for the combination of Bass and Newman, we again agree with the
examiner that the teachings of Newman provide ample suggestion to support that
combination. See particularly, column 1, lines 16-32, of Newman, wherein it is noted that an
oval (elliptical) configuration for the tube portion fills the hole in the figure-8 wound cable
within the container to a greater degree and provides a greater amount of support for the
cable material on either side of the hole, and at the same time allows some freedom of
movement of the wound material, assuming that its diameter is less than the minor axis of
the elliptical oval pay-out tube.
On the basis of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17
through 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bass in view of
Newman. We again note that appellants have grouped the claims to “stand or fall together”
(brief, page 4), and that dependent claims 18, 19 and 21 thus fall with claim 17.
In summary, we have refused to sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fore, or that of claims 10 through 13 and
22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fore in view of
Heyman. However, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 14 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fore in view of Heyman, and that of
claims 17 through 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bass in
view of Newman. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007