Appeal No. 1996-3350
Application 08/187,114
Clabburn for ease of removal would have been suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art by the teachings of Nelson.
Appellants also argue that neither reference suggests
sleeves having the properties of the claimed subject matter
(Brief, pages 4, 7 and 8). The examiner states that, since
Clabburn teaches a three layer sleeve made of the same
materials with the same thickness as disclosed in appellants’
specification, stretched and applied into conforming
engagement in the same manner, one of ordinary skill in the
art “would certainly expect the sleeve of Clabburn to exhibit
the identically recited elasticity and residual deformation.”
(Answer, page 5). The examiner further states that the
claimed pressure “would be inherent to the sleeve taught by
Clabburn as would the additional claimed properties.” (Answer,
sentence bridging pages 5-6).
Clabburn teaches that particularly good results have been
obtained when using polyolefins as the material for the
insulating inner layer (column 2, lines 55-57). This material
may be crosslinked (column 4, lines 33-35) and the thicknesses
may be similar to those disclosed in appellants’ specification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007