Appeal No. 1998-1079
Application No. 08/572,166
of the metal braided shield, of Clouet.
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, one would have
combined Clouet and Sawyer in the manner set forth by the
examiner, we find no reason for the artisan to have looked to
Kurzböck for filaments of a wear-resistant material to be used
as a protective element in the Clouet/Sawyer combination.
Kurzböck is directed to ropes and has absolutely nothing to do
with the electrical conductor art to which Clouet, Sawyer and
the instant invention are directed. As indicated by
appellant, at page 4 of the principal brief, Kurzböck “fails
to teach or suggest a need to protect the rope against
frictional wear caused by one of its own components or a need
to protect an external object against abrasive action caused
by the rope.” The use of any teaching by Kurzböck in the
electrical conductor arts of Clouet and Sawyer could only have
been justified through impermissible hindsight.
Since we find no reason for the skilled artisan to have
combined the applied references in any manner which would have
resulted in the instant claimed invention, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007