Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
We hold that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art in
view of the teaching of either Spencer or Gruhn. In paragraph
1 above, we found that Spencer does not describe an “oriented
polymeric monofilament” of the shape defined by Claim 1.
Moreover, Spencer’s teaching, as a whole, reasonably would not
have led persons having ordinary skill in the art to orient
filaments made from natural or synthetic rubbers which are
elastic. Elastic filaments would appear to be resistant to
drawing from about 3.4 to 7.0 times its original length, and
preferably from about 3.5 to 4.7 times its original length.
Thus, we find that Spencer’s teaching would have led persons
having ordinary skill in the art away from the invention
appellant claims.
Gruhn describes a strength element for fiber optic cable
comprising (Gruhn, Claim 1, col. 6-7):
. . . an elongated central portion and at least three
substantially longitudinally extending ribs . . . being
integrally formed of a resin material reinforced with
fibers . . . selected from the group comprising glass
fibers, ceramic fibers, carbon fibers and aramid fibers.
Referring to Figs. 1 and 3, Gruhn teaches (Gruhn, col. 4, l.
58, to col. 5, l. 1):
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007