Appeal No. 2005-0267
Application No. 09/982,154
Appellant asserts the separate patentability of all the
appealed claims.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Hastings '827, like appellant,
discloses a high voltage cable comprising a fiber core, a first
layer of an electrically relatively non-insulative polymer, a
second layer of an electrically relatively non-conductive
polymer, a fourth layer including a metal braid shield, and a
fifth layer comprising a relatively solvent- and abrasive-
resistant polymer jacket. As recognized by the examiner, the
high voltage cable of Hastings '827 fails to include the
presently claimed third layer of an electrically relatively non-
insulative polymer. However, we concur with the examiner that
Dinzen evidences the obviousness of modifying the high voltage
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007