Appeal No. 1998-0215
Application No. 08/052,671
Pedlow does not teach using a surfactant on the cloth prior to
applying a thermoplastic coating. The examiner, however,
asserts (Id.) that:
Such a modification would have been suggested
by the reasoned motivation that such a material
would provide good wetting of the cloth by the
resin and form a more stable laminate.
This assertion is not supported by any objective evidence
relied upon by the examiner. Under these circumstances, we
are constrained to reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claim 4 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Pedlow.
REJECTION BASED ON PEDLOW AND MATER
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined
by claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Pedlow and Mater. See Answer, page 3.
The examiner recognizes that Pedlow does not teach using PETG
as a thermoplastic insulation material. Id.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Mater. See Answer, pages 3 and 4. However,
Mater does not indicate that PETG is useful as an electrical
insulation material. See Mater in its entirety. Since, on
this record, the examiner has not demonstrated that PETG is
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007