Appeal No. 1999-0434
Application No. 08/664,257
The examiner responds (Answer at 11) that Odhner does not teach restricting the
materials for the insulating material and first jacket layer to those disclosed. The examiner
finds that Odhner teaches that other materials may be used, as disclosed in "the
examples" and at column 2, lines 24 through 30. As for the signal dissipation factor and
dielectric constant, the examiner observes that Odhner does not disclose either of the two
quantities in the description of the PVDF material. Further, based on remarks made by
appellant during prosecution, the examiner concludes that since PVDF is a fluoropolymer,
then PVDF has the physical properties of the fluoropolymer that is claimed.
We find ourselves in agreement with appellant with respect to the teachings of
Odhner. The Odhner reference theorizes a synergistic relationship with respect to PVDF
polymers and silica glass tape in the context of minimizing flame spread. Although
recognizing that polymers such as PTFE and FEP were used as jacket and insulating
layers, the reference discloses the inventive combination to be superior. See Odhner at
col. 2, ll. 2-23. Odhner also discloses (column 4, Table I) comparative studies wherein the
embodiment of the disclosed invention (Example I) is shown to be superior in minimizing
flame spread and smoke density when compared to cables comprised of other materials,
including FEP as an insulation layer (Example III) and, as experimental controls, cables
having PVC. See id. at col. 4, ll. 52-68.
Considering the disclosure of Odhner as a whole, in our opinion the combined
teachings of Odhner, Schwarcz, and Dougherty as applied against instant claim 30 would
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007