Appeal 2006-3240
Application 10/316,436
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed February 14, 2006) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed October 31,
2005) for the appellants’ arguments.1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we are guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966), viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art.
In the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18, the examiner determined
that Meyer discloses a cable support system with a hanger plate (50) securable to a
structure and a first cable support member (102) directly attached to the hanger
plate. Answer, p. 3. The examiner further found that the first cable support
1 The appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007