Appeal No. 1998-2368 Page 8
Application No. 08/443,217
Here, Schafer does teach a "seamless layer 36 of
dielectric material ... surrounded by an outer seamless
jacket 38 of conductive material compressing layer 36 radially
inwardly ...." Col. 4, ll. 44-47. Assuming arguendo that the
reference's seamless layer of dielectric material surrounded
by an outer seamless jacket of conductive material is
functionally equivalent to Kobayashi's teaching of "a
polyester tape 3, a tinned soft copper wire 4," col. 1, ll.
63-64, it still does not follow that substitution of the
former for the latter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. The examiner also fails to allege,
let alone show, that Singles and Jarger cure the deficiency.
Because the examiner omits a line of reasoning that explains
why the substitution would have been desirable, we are not
persuaded that the prior art would have suggested combining
the teachings of Kobayashi and Schafer. Therefore, we reverse
the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as obvious over Kobayashi in
view of Schafer, Singles, and Jarger.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007