Appeal No. 2004-1879
Application No. 9/915,528
Appellants respond that McGregor and Wargotz are
completely silent about the values of tensile strength and
elongation at break of the different layers of the cable sheath.
Appellants also respond that McGregor and Wargotz are silent
about any influence of additives to insulating materials in the
direction of tensile strength and elongation at break. Finally,
appellants respond that the fact that both references relate to
power cables is insufficient to support their combination because
they relate to entirely different types of cables for entirely
different applications [reply brief, pages 1-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-
3, 8 and 9 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in
the briefs. Specifically, there is no support for the examiner’s
position that the additives in McGregor would have any
substantial effect on the tensile strength or break at elongation
of the insulation layer. Any assertion that the additives would
necessarily significantly lower the tensile strength and
elongation at break of the modified layer is nothing more than
unsupported speculation. We also agree with appellants that
there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Wargots with
the teachings of McGregor. The additives described in McGregor
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007