Appeal No. 1998-1916 Page 5
Application No. 08/406,392
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and appellants' argument.
Recognizing that Clabburn lacks "a thickness of the layer
of elastic insulating material disposed around the end
fittings being about 30 % to about 40% thicker than
substantially the entire remainder of the layer of elastic
insulating material disposed around the insulating rod;"
(Examiner's Answer at 3), the examiner alleges, "it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
insulator of Clabburn by adopting the teaching of Kalb to have
better compressive force and the thicker portions of the end
weathersheds would inherently enhance the insulation between
the end fittings and, thus, give better protection from flash
over." (Id. at 6.) The appellants argue, "since the
insulator of Clabburn is manufactured by a completely
different process ..., there would be no reason to make any
portion of the sheath (12) thicker." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007