Appeal 2006-3240
Application 10/316,436
for the purpose of providing an adjustment feature to space the conduit support
members (50) at different lengths from the structure. Answer, pp. 4, 6.
The appellants contend that “[n]either Meyer nor Russell, taken alone or in
combination, disclose, teach or suggest chaining plate 70 attachable to the hanger
plate 40, with the chaining plate 70 having the ability to accommodate a plurality
of cable support members 86 and 88.” Brief, p. 9. The appellants argue that the
examiner employed hindsight to state that the advantages of the appellants’
invention would have made it obvious to produce the claimed invention. Brief,
p. 9.
We find no teaching or suggestion in Meyer and Russell that would have led
one having ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention. If one were to
combine the teachings of Meyer and Russell, one would be led to modify the
mounting bracket structure (50) of Meyer by adding a bar, similar to bar (10) of
Russell, to the top portion of the bracket structure (50) of Meyer to make it a two-
part hanger, as taught in Russell, so that the length of the hanger could be adjusted.
There is no teaching or suggestion in either Meyer or Russell to add an additional
bracket structure (50), as suggested by the examiner, to either end of the initial
mounting bracket structure (50) of Meyer for supporting additional support
members. We find no motivation, absent hindsight, to combine these structures of
the prior art in a fashion that would have resulted in the cable support system
having a chaining plate as claimed. As such, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meyer in
view of Russell. With regard to remaining rejected dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007