Appeal No. 2001-0444 Page 5
Application No. 08/949,803
5, line 23) and surrounds the core. Gareis also discloses a jacket 36 that surrounds the
strength member 33 and acts as an insulator between two conductive layers (column 5,
lines 10-25).
The examiner holds that it would have been obvious to modify the cable of
Arroyo 442 to have a conductive material made of copper in view of Gareis’ teaching “in
order to have a cable that has a high flexibility torque design and high overall tensile
strength (Col. 3, lines 55-64)” of Gareis [answer-page 5] “and to have an insulation
layer surrounding the strength members, because it is well known in the art, as taught
by Gareis...that having insulation layers provides a cable with superior insulation
resistance levels (Col. 3, lines 55-59)” [answer-page 5].
For his part, appellant argues: 1. that Arroyo 442 and Gareis are not analogous
art because they do not relate to underwater cables; 2. that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness; 3. that the examiner is relying on an
inherency theory which is unsupported; and 4. that the examiner has not given due
consideration to the functional limitations of the claims.
Taking the arguments in order, as they relate to independent claim 7:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007