Appeal No. 1997-0236
Application No. 08/211,829
references of Shulver, Betts, and Bruns. In the responsive
arguments portion at page 7 of the Answer, the Examiner
suggests that Smith-Johannsen meets the requirements of claim
1 by the fact that dual insulating jackets of the same
material are used. After reviewing the claim language of
claim 1 in light of the arguments of record, it is our view
that the Examiner has not addressed the specifics of the
language in the last paragraph of claim 1. To establish prima
facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim
limitations must be suggested or taught by the prior art. In
re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1970). All words
in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of
that claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Since the
disclosure of Smith-Johannsen is totally silent as to any
concern for flame protection, we fail to see how such
disclosure would meet claim limitations directed to a flame
test, let alone under the specific conditions set forth in the
last paragraph of claim 1. If the Examiner intends to suggest
that the materials used in the insulating jackets of Smith-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007