Appeal No. 2005-0267
Application No. 09/982,154
cable of Hastings '827 by incorporating an additional
electrically relatively non-insulative polymer layer which
corresponds to appellant's third layer.
Dinzen discloses a high voltage cable comprising a
conductive layer between the insulative layer and the layer of
braid wires, and teaches that such a construction prevents damage
to the cable during transient over-voltages. Accordingly, we
find that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to conduct a typical cost/benefit analysis to determine
whether it is economically prudent to include an additional
electrically relatively non-insulative polymer layer in the high
voltage cable of Hastings '827. Manifestly, such an analysis
would take into account the intended uses for the cable.
Regarding the separate rejection of claims 3-8, we concur
with the examiner that Hastings '935 evidences the obviousness of
the specifically claimed features, for example, impregnating the
core with carbon black and using a carbon black-loaded
polyethylene for the first electrically relatively non-insulative
polymer layer. In our view, the prior art submitted by the
examiner, taken as a whole, provides substantial evidence of the
obviousness of the material selected by appellant to construct
the claimed high voltage cable.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007