Appeal No. 1996-3350
Application 08/187,114
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue that Clabburn does not teach any
relative sizes of the tube and cables, does not teach any
pressure caused by the tube on the cable, and in fact proposes
use of a sealant between the tube and cables which implies
that the tube does not press against the cable (Brief, pages
6-7). This argument is not persuasive since Clabburn
specifically teaches that the elastic stresses released by
removing the hold-out member urges the tubular article to
recover into conforming engagement, thus implying a pressure
against the cables (column 3, lines 57-59). Furthermore, the
use of a sealant to ensure air-tight engagement does not imply
that the pressure of the tubular article against the cable is
insufficient.3
Appellants argue that the Pegoraro Declaration supports
their position that the materials used to make the claimed
sleeve are not obvious in view of Clabburn (Brief, pages 4-5).
However, the burden is on appellants to explain the results of
3See the specification, page 6, where appellants disclose
the use of a sealing compound 9 in conjunction with the
claimed elastic sleeve.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007