Ex parte GAGNON - Page 6




              Appeal No. 1999-0434                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/664,257                                                                                 

              not have suggested replacing the first jacket layer in Odhner's cable with PVC material, as                
              contemplated by the rejection.2                                                                            
                     In addition, appellant has referred to evidence in the record that the PVDF material                
              disclosed by Odhner has a dielectric constant of 4.9 and a dissipation factor of 0.30 "at                  
              high frequencies."  A product data sheet submitted by appellant in an Information                          
              Disclosure Statement filed July 24, 1997 in the instant case refers to "Solef PVDF"                        
              fluorocopolymer, disclosing material specifications consistent with appellant's averment.                  
              Since the examiner has supplied no evidence to the contrary, nor convincingly explained                    
              how the claim 30 specified quantities with respect to the insulation layers might be                       
              disclosed or suggested by the references, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 30 for                  
              this additional reason.                                                                                    
                     Unlike claim 30, instant claim 31 does not require a "metallic shield surrounding                   
              said first jacket layer."  In the rejection of claim 31 set forth on pages 8 and 9 of the                  
              Answer, the examiner offers the combination of Odhner in view of Schwarcz in substantially                 
              the same way as applied against claim 30.  For the same reasons that we have found that                    




                     2The rejection relies on replacing the "first jacket layer" in Odhner's cable.  However, in view of 
              Odhner's description, the "first jacket layer" could fairly be deemed to comprise a material "having flame-
              resistant and smoke-suppressive properties," at least within the disclosed environment.  Flame-resistance  
              and smoke-suppression are the reasons for Odhner's contribution to the art, and Odhner teaches careful     
              selection of the disclosed material for the "first jacket layer" in reaching those goals.  However, even though
              our reading of the claims may be somewhat less restrictive than the examiner's, we consider the claims to  
              be patentable over the references for reasons unrelated to the material comprising the "first jacket layer."
                                                           -6-                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007