Appeal No. 1997-1896
Application No. 08/476,389
specific material for the core and the examiner has not provided a line of reasoning or
motivation to use one type of material over another. Moreover, the examiner has not
identified any portion of Rawlyk to teach or suggest the dimensions set forth in claim 20
nor have we found any such motivation within the four corners of Rawlyk.
With respect to the combination of the references, the examiner states that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to “use the
plastic material as taught by Brosius et al. for the plastic core member of Rawlyk for easy
molding.” (See answer at page 5.) Furthermore, the examiner has stated that “[t]he
motivation for combining the references is the dual benefit of the plastic material having
both mechanical strength and easy molding.” (See answer at page 6.) We disagree. The
examiner has not provided a teaching or a convincing line of reasoning as to why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the
particular plastic of Brosius in a telecommunication cable or related product as a
motivation for the combination. Brosius is silent as to its use in cables. Therefore, we find
that the examiner has used impermissible hindsight reconstruction in rejecting claim 20.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007