Appeal No. 1999-2316
Application No. 08/640,262
flammable material in a flammable environment.” Appellants
conclude, therefore, that the examiner “has engaged in an
improper hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention”
(brief, page 24). Inasmuch as Bleich is completely silent as
to the use of HDPE in lieu of PVC in a cable such as the one
disclosed by Arroyo, and the examiner has failed to present a
convincing line of reasoning as to why the skilled artisan
would have made such a modification to the teachings of
Arroyo, we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page
20) that the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case
of obviousness. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 39 is reversed. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 4, 6 through 10, 13, 14, 31, 40, 45 and 47 through 50
is likewise reversed because the teachings of Gerland, Arpin,
Nye and the TIA/EIA Standard document do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings and suggestions of Arroyo and
Bleich.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007