Appeal 2006-3240
Application 10/316,436
member (102) has a first leg with mounting means (30, 32) on the back side for
attaching to the hanger plate, a second leg with a cable support surface, and a third
leg with a cable retention surface. Answer, p. 3. The examiner acknowledged that
Meyer does not disclose a chaining plate for attachment to the hanger plate to
extend the length available to attach cable support members. Answer, p. 4. We
agree with the examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of Meyer and the
differences between Meyer and the prior art.
The examiner relies on Russell for the teaching of a conduit support system
with a hanger plate (10) securable to a structure (C), a chaining plate (11) attached
to the hanger plate, and a first cable support member (20 and 21) attachable to the
chaining plate. Answer, p. 4. The examiner determined that hanger plate (10) has
a plurality of slots (12) configured to attach the chaining plate by a hook (15 and
16) through a plurality of openings. Answer, p. 4.
The appellants argue that the bars (10 and 11) of Russell are adjustable
merely to allow for an increase or decrease in the length of the shank and thus
essentially form a two-part hanger plate. Brief, p. 10. The appellants further note
that the bar (10) of Russell does not have a first cable support member directly
attachable to it, and the bar (11) does not accommodate a plurality of pipe-
supporting collars (B). Brief, p. 10. The appellants conclude that Russell does not
provide any teaching to add any sort of chaining plate. Brief, p. 10.
The appellants and the examiner appear to disagree about the scope and
content of Russell and whether it teaches a chaining plate as claimed. We agree
with the appellants and find that Russell does not disclose a chaining plate. Rather,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007