Appeal No. 1999-0943
Application 08/906,135
completely covering the length of the wire, and that since Whitfield indicates that the layer (16)
and the coating material (24) of the wire therein are made of the same or similar materials, that
the outer shell material will have a coefficient of expansion “approximately equal” to that of the
first material (at layer 16). We agree with the examiner, and will accordingly sustain the
rejection of claim 2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Per appellant’s grouping of the claims,
dependent claim 3 will fall with claim 2.
Appellant’s claim 10 on appeal adds the further limitation that the inner member of claim
1 is “made of an alloy which includes at least about seventy-five volume percent of aluminum
and between about ten volume percent and about twenty-five volume percent abrasive material.”
Since we agree with appellant that Whitfield fails to disclose or teach any such alloy with
abrasive material therein, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Similarly, since independent claim 19 likewise includes the same
recitation concerning the particular material from which the tubular inner member is formed, and
such has been separately argued by appellant, we will also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 19 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). It follows that the examiner’s rejection of claim
20, which depends from claim 19, and claim 21 will also not be sustained.
Independent claim 12 on appeal is similar to claim 1, but includes a recitation regarding
an outer shell like that previously set forth in dependent claim 2. Again, we are in agreement
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007