Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 4
Application No. 09/860,423
Rejection 1
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 9, 14 to 22 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into
account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A protective cover for cables or hoses used in environments in which the
cables and hoses are subjected to abrasion, chemicals, or weather extremes,
said protective cover comprising a sleeve surrounding said cable or hose, said
sleeve having open ends and formed of a fabric made substantially of high
performance yarns having a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 150
grams/denier and a tenacity equal to or greater than 7 grams/denier so that the
protective cover is abrasion-resistant, cut-resistant, and tear-resistant.[2]
2The appellants' specification (p. 2) teaches that the protective cover is
constructed from a woven fabric formed primarily from high- strength (high
performance) yarns. As used herein, "high-strength yarns'' refers to the entire family of
yarns that have a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 150 grams/denier and a
tenacity equal to or greater than 7 grams/denier. Such high strength yams may be
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007