Appeal No. 1998-1251
Application 08/521,393
What the above-quoted text indicates is that the resistance of the shield including whatever
faults it may have, is determined. It does not disclose that the precise position of any fault
on the cable is determined. On this record, the examiner has not provided any evidence
that either Tuttle ‘375 or Daniel teaches determining the location of a fault on the cable
being tested. The appellant’s argument stands unrebutted that while Daniel determines
that a conductor has a flaw or is degraded, the appellant’s claimed invention locates the
position of the flaw.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-15.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tuttle ‘375 and Daniels is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
SALLY GARDNER-LANE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
SALLY C. MEDLEY )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007