Appeal No. 1999-0434
Application No. 08/664,257
the references fail to establish prima facie unpatentability of claim 30, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 31.
Instant claim 36 is drawn to a plenum rated data communication cable "for
transmitting low frequency signals." The examiner addresses claim 36 on page 6 of the
Answer. The rejection relies on the combination of Odhner, Schwarcz, and Dougherty for
suggestion of the first jacket layer "comprising a material having flame-resistant and
smoke-suppressive properties." Since we do not agree that the teachings would have
suggested replacing the first jacket layer disclosed by Odhner with the material disclosed
by Schwarcz, for the reasons noted previously herein, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claim 36.
The examiner further refers (Answer at 6) to column 4, lines 65 through 66 of
Odhner as disclosing ECTFE for suggestion for the insulation layer "comprising an
ethylene-chlorotrifluoroethylene polymer," as required by claim 36. However, we agree
with appellant (Reply Brief at 3-4) that Odhner teaches that ECTFE has inferior properties
with respect to flame spread. See Odhner at col. 4, Table I and ll. 60-68. We therefore
conclude that the applied prior art fails to show obviousness of the combination of claim 36
for this additional reason.
The rejection applied against instant claim 51 (Answer at 8-9) relies on the
combination of Odhner and Schwarcz for the claimed details of the "first jacket layer," and
the "insulation layer comprising an ethylene-chlorotrifluoroethylene polymer." However, for
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007