Appeal No. 2004-2173
Application No. 09/970353
being unpatentable over Bahder in view of Crawley, we make note
of the examiner's findings and conclusions set forth on pages 3-7
and 9-12 of the answer, particularly the finding that column 17,
line 56 - column 18, line 7 of Crawley "teaches that a weld and a
clamp are functional equivalents as couplings for attaching the
communication lines to the protective housing," and the
examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the appellants' invention
was made "to have used a weld as taught by Crawley et al. instead
of the clamp of Bahder et al. as couplings for attaching the
communication lines to the protective housing since welds and
clamps are considered functional equivalents."
It is the above-noted finding from Crawley and the
conclusion based thereon which appellants have contested on
appeal, urging that the broad disclosure in Crawley pointed to by
the examiner (col. 17, line 56 - col. 18, line 7) does not stand
for the proposition that a weld is interchangeable with a clamp
for any and all applications, and that it is clear from a reading
of Bahder that a weld would not provide a suitable manner for
sealing the insulating sleeve (10) therein to the insulating
shields (8, 9) of the respective communication lines. More
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007