Appeal 2007-1060
Application 10/822,549
that Dillin also discloses that underside surfaces forming part of a counter
bore are necessary in order to prevent accidental release of the cord (and)
"[t]hese undersurfaces are required to keep the end tab (M) within the
channel F" (page 7 of Answer, para. (b)). We find no error in the Examiner's
analysis of Dillin's disclosure at lines 51-56 and 68-75 in the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 of the Answer, and Appellant has not rebutted such.
As for separately argued claims 9, 11 and 15, we essentially agree
with the Examiner's analysis set forth in the Answer.
We agree with Appellant, however, that Dillin does not describe the
claim 10 recitation that "flanges have converging sections leading from a
maximum width of said slot at the entry end of said receiving channel to a
reduced width of said slot at an intermediate location along the length of said
channel." As can be seen in Figure 2 of Dillin, the slot defined by recess F
has a constant width and, therefore, does not have a reduced width at an
intermediate location along the length of the recess. It may be that the
Examiner has misinterpreted the meaning of the shading in Figure 4 of
Dillin to depict a reduced width as the recess extends into the plane of the
paper.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons stated in the
Answer, the Examiner's Rejection of claims 1, 8, 9 and 11-15 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 10 is reversed. Accordingly, the
Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013