Appeal No. 1997-0236
Application No. 08/211,829
heater structure of Smith-Johannsen comes from an improper
attempt to reconstruct Appellants’ invention in hindsight.
With regard to the Bruns reference, it is apparent that
this reference was applied by the Examiner solely for
providing a teaching of wrapping an insulating cable with a
metallic sheath, a feature present in some of the dependent
claims but not in any of the independent claims on appeal.
Our review of Bruns reveals no disclosure that would overcome
the innate deficiencies of Smith-Johannsen alone or in
combination with Shulver or Betts. Further, as with Shulver,
we can find no motivation for combining Bruns’ teachings with
Smith-Johannsen since the problem of abrasion protection,
addressed by Bruns with the addition of a metallic sheath, is
not disclosed to be a problem in Smith-Johannsen.
Finally, although the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references is apparently intended to apply to all of the
rejected claims, we note that independent claim 1 contains no
recitation of a preformed tape or metallic sheath insulating
layer. Claim recitations directed to these layers are
ostensibly the reason the Examiner has applied the secondary
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007