Appeal No. 2002-2050
Application No. 08/973,019
Thus, the teachings of the references and how they are relied
upon have been made clear.
Appellant (Request, page 5) accuses us of oversimplifying
"the multitude of the actual structural differences [between
Elton and Shildneck]" and "clearly tak[ing] reference teachings
completely out of context so as to improperly expand them."
However, appellant fails to enumerate any of the "multitude of
the actual structural differences."
Further, appellant questions "where is the 'substantial
evidence' that the additional layers of FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 of
Elton '565 'yield the same benefit' as simply concluded without
explanation"? The evidence that the additional layers of Figure
6 (and Figure 1) of Elton '565 yield the same benefit as those of
Figure 7 is implicit in the background section of Elton '565 and
is explicitly stated in the descriptions of the drawings.
More specifically, the majority of the "Background of the
Invention" discusses the problem of electrical charge buildup and
corona discharge in windings of electromagnetic machines, and, at
column 2, lines 14-18, indicates that the same problems occur in
cables carrying high voltages. In addition, in the description
of Figure 1, Elton states that pyrolyzed glass fiber layer 18
"bleeds off the electric charge on that [exterior] surface. This
bleeding off of the electric charge prohibits the development of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007