Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 14
Application No. 09/899,919
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)). Here, "[p]roximate the base 62 [of van Woesik] each plate 64 has an outwardly
projecting retention pip 70." (Col. 5, ll. 2-3.) Because "[t]he retention pips 70 engage
the walls of the slots 33 to hold the clip 12 in its home position," (col. 5, l. 67 – col. 6,
l. 1), we agree with the examiner's finding that the walls of the slots constitute a
retaining part for engaging a retaining pip of a clip. Figure 7 of the primary reference,
moreover, shows that walls of the slots 33 are perpendicular to the insertion direction of
the optical fiber cord. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and of claim 2, which
falls therewith.
B. CLAIM 3
Taking official notice that "employing a gable wedge to provide a sharp edge
[wa]s well established in the art to improve the ease of cutting," (Examiner's Answer
at 9), the examiner asserts that "providing a gable wedge in order to facilitate the cutting
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art." (Id.) The appellant
"asserts that there is to no motivation to modify the blades of the applied references to
include a gable edge because of the greater complexity in manufacturing." (Reply Br. at
4.)
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007