Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8), the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14), and the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 20) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the
Brief (Paper No. 12) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for appellants’ position.
OPINION
Section 102 rejection over Berends
The examiner has rejected Claims 1-3 and 12 as anticipated by Berends. Berends discloses a
high voltage cable comprised of an insulating pipe 2 that is coated on its inner surface with a conductive
layer of lacquer 3. An internal conductor 5 is coaxially mounted in the pipe and is supported within a
core of synthetic resin 4.
Appellants have not submitted arguments contending separate patentability of any of Claims 1-3
and 12. Accordingly, we select Claim 1 as representative of the subject matter. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
Appellants submit several arguments to show that the rejection in error. The arguments are all
based, to some extent, on the premise that the high voltage cable is not a “coaxial” cable. The basis is
most explicit in the Reply Brief, and in the expert’s declaration that accompanied the Reply Brief.
There thus appears to be controversy related to interpretation of the claims.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007