Appeal No. 1999-0604
Application 08/575,477
wires being to "rigidify the structure" of the cable way (col.
2, lines 40 to 44). From Fig. 5, the diameter of wire 10
appears to be less than the diameter of wires 8 and 9.
Notwithstanding Simon's lack of disclosure that bottom
longitudinal wires 8 should or may be of different diameters,
the examiner concludes that such a modification of Simon would
have been obvious in view of Simon's teaching "that it is
known to have longitudinal wires and/or transverse wires
having different cross sections and different diameter sizes .
. . than that [sic: those] of the other longitudinal wires"
(answer, page 4). The examiner also states at pages 6 to 8 of
the answer:
In response to the applicant's arguments the
examiner admits that Simon does not disclose at
least one intermediate bottom longitudinal wires
[sic] having a cross sectional area less than that
of the said sidemost bottom longitudinal wires. But
. . . it would have been an obvious matter of design
choice to [provide?] at least one intermediate
bottom longitudinal wires [sic] having a cross
sectional area less than that of the said sidemost
bottom longitudinal wires, since such a modification
would have involved a mere change in the size of the
diameter of a component. A change in size is
generally recognized as being
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007