Appeal No. 2004-1442 Page 6
Application No. 09/308,548
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 28,
and claims 29 to 31 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Hlavacek is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 28, 29 and 34 to 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hlavacek. We will not sustain the
rejection of claims 28, 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Laboureau '710 in view of Hlavacek. We will not sustain the rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laboureau '151 in view of Hlavacek.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
As acknowledged by the examiner (answer, pp. 4-6), the primary references to
Li, Laboureau '710 and Laboureau '151 do not disclose imparting a predetermined
torsion to individual strands prior to forming the bundle. To account for this deficiency,
the examiner relies on Hlavacek.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007