Appeal No. 2004-1879
Application No. 9/915,528
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4-
7 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants. We
incorporate our discussion above with respect to the combination
of Wargotz and McGregor. Livingston does not overcome the
deficiencies of the basic combination discussed above. Although
it may be possible to select materials taught by Livingston that
would have the tensile properties and break at elongation in the
manner claimed, there is no suggestion in Livingston to apply
these teachings to the cable of Wargotz. Livingston also teaches
that an adhesive would need to be used between the two layers of
insulation while claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites
that the two layers of insulation are firmly bonded together when
they are extruded together. Thus, it appears that the applied
prior art would teach the use of an adhesive which is not
permitted in the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed
invention is not taught by the applied references.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007