Appeal No. 2004-1879
Application No. 9/915,528
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and 9
based on Wargotz and McGregor. These claims stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 4], and we will consider
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this group.
With respect to representative claim 1, the examiner essentially
finds that Wargots teaches the claimed invention except for the
values for tensile strength and elongation at break of the inner
layer being significantly lower than those for the outer layer.
The examiner cites McGregor as teaching a cable where additives
are mixed into the inner layer. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to mix additives as taught by
McGregor into the inner layer of the Wargotz cable. The examiner
asserts that since the inner layer of Wargotz would then include
additives, the values for tensile strength and elongation at
break of the inner layer would be significantly lower than those
for the outer layer [answer, pages 4-5].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007