Appeal 2007-0994
Application 10/171,358
or more in number. We further agree that the three cord-contacting portions of jaw
edges 75a and 75b can each be considered a connecting member, inasmuch as they
serve to secure the cords into the connector. As argued by the Examiner, when
only two lift cords are present, each cord could be associated with its own pair of
jaw edges 75a, 75b, and this pair forms a connecting member that would be
disassociated from the other connecting members--another set of jaws 75a and 75b
which capture the other lift cord.
Secondly, the bead or ferrule 60a of Judkins corresponds to Appellant’s
claimed connecting member. Therefore, in installations of even eight lift cords,
each connecting member, i.e., each bead or ferrule, is used to independently secure
the associated lift cord while each connecting member or bead is disassociated
from all other lift cords. This is the second manner in which Judkins satisfies the
limitations of independent claim 1.
Turning to claim 36, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 36 and the
claims that depend therefrom. While Judkins discloses multiple embodiments,
none of the pivoting side members of Judkins, which could be considered
peripheral members, receive and are secured to no more than one lift cord and are
disassociated from other lift cords. Furthermore, none of these side peripheral
members appears to have a bore therethrough if the bore in Judkins is considered
as the cut-out on the top of the peripheral members through which the cords
extend. The cut-out is bounded by more than one peripheral member.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of claims 1, 4, and 5 which has not been rebutted by Appellant. The
Examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of claims 36-38, 40, 47,
and 48. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013