Appeal No. 1997-4200
Application No. 08/428,790
not describe step (c) as recited in appealed claim 1.
According to Wermine, “the conductors 10 and 11 are first
embedded in a single mass of insulating material 17 in the
space between the exit end of the guide 21 and the inlet of
the die 19...” (Underscoring added; page 2, left column,
lines 27-30; Fig. 1.) Thus, contrary to the examiner’s
allegation (examiner’s answer, page 6), Wermine does not teach
“moving both conductors into an extruder means which coats
each conductor separately and independently with a heated
thermoplastic electrical insulation material...” (Emphasis
added.) We therefore determine that the combination of
Bullock and Wermine would not have resulted in the appellants’
invention as recited in appealed claim 1.
For these reasons, we hold that the examiner has not made
out a prima facie case of obviousness against the subject
matter of appealed independent claim 1 within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Since appealed claims 2 through 8 and 15 all
depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1, it
follows that the subject matter of these dependent claims
would also not have been obvious over the applied prior art
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007