Appeal No. 1998-2981
Application No. 08/763,390
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7 and 10
under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection of claims 1 and 5, the Examiner cites
Bahder for disclosure of all claimed elements with exception
of the use of a high permittivity stress control material.3
Citing use of semi-conducting cups 4 and 5 as well as use
of filler 15 to transmit electrical potential to insulating
sleeve 10, Appellants argue that Bahder teaches away from use
of filler 15 to control stress at the cut ends of cable
insulation 6 and 7.4
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, when interpreting a
3 See page 4 of the answer.
4 See page 10 of the brief.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007