Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
Berends gives an example of provision of the conductive layer -- wetting the inside of the pipe
with a silver solution. See Berends, column 2, lines 8 through 16. Berends also suggests that the layer
should be relatively “thin,” to ensure proper operation. See id. at column 1, lines 48 through 55. We
therefore find that the reference would have suggested to the artisan at least to attempt minimizing
thickness of the conductive layer.
It therefore appears reasonable that the artisan would have been motivated to minimize
thickness of the conductive layer such that the thickness fell somewhere in the range of slightly more
than zero micrometers to slightly less than 200 micrometers. Since appellants have failed to rebut a
reasonable case of prima facie obviousness of the invention set out by the examiner, we sustain the
rejection of Claims 4-6 under Section 103 over Berends.
We are in agreement with appellants, however, that the reference does not support a prima
facie rejection of the subject matter of method Claim 8. For at least the reasons pointed out on page 5
of the Reply Brief, the Berends disclosure teaches away from passing the insulated central conductor
through a solution of electroconductive lacquer. We therefore reverse the rejection of Claims 8, 9, and
13 over Berends.
Section 103 rejection over Berends and Sato
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007