Appeal No. 1998-1079
Application No. 08/572,166
own components or a need to protect an external object against
abrasive action caused by the rope.
Even though the applied prior art does not mention the
protection against frictional wear which is recited in the
instant claims, we agree with the examiner that if the prior
art is capable of performing the intended use, then such claim
language is met. Thus, appellant’s argument that Sawyer’s
braided elements B and D are soft materials is not persuasive
since such materials do offer some protection, albeit not the
same amount of protection envisioned by appellant, against
frictional wear of the conductors. Merely because the braided
elements B and D of Sawyer are disclosed as insulating
coverings does not preclude their additional function as a
“protecting means.”
The problem we have with the instant rejection goes more
to the motivation for combining the references. We find
nothing, other than impermissible hindsight gleaned from
appellant’s disclosure, which would have led the artisan to
apply the insulating coverings of Sawyer to Clouet in a manner
so as to use a braided insulating sheath between the metal
braided shield and the conductors, or on the external surface
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007