Appeal 2006-3240
Application 10/316,436
12, 14-17, 19-26, 28, 30-32, 34-37, 39-42, 46, and 47, because these claim
rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent claims 1 and 18, we
also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 5 USQP2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is
nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is
nonobvious).
With regard to claims 6, 10, 27, 29, and 33, the examiner found that Meyer
and Russell do not disclose a cable support member with a rib, a latch, and a stop,
or two slots in the cable support surface. The examiner relied on Rinderer to teach
these deficiencies in the art. Answer, p. 5. Claims 6, 10, 27, 29, and 33 depend
from either claim 1 or claim 18. As such, each of these dependent claims also
includes the limitation of a chaining plate. We find that Rinderer fails to teach or
suggest a chaining plate, such that when viewed collectively with Meyer and
Russell, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to add
a chaining plate to a cable support hanger. Rinderer teaches only a single cable
support (10) that may be attached to a bracket suspended from an overhead
structure by a hanger rod. Rinderer, col. 2, lines 60-62. There is no teaching or
suggestion in Rinderer to attach a second hanger rod or chaining plate to the first
hanger rod. As such, we find no motivation, absent hindsight, to combine the
structures of Meyer, Russell, and Rinderer in a fashion that would have resulted in
the cable support system having a chaining plate as claimed. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10, 27, 29, and 33 as unpatentable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007