Appeal No. 2005-0267
Application No. 09/982,154
The thrust of appellant's argument is that the myriad of
choices provided by the cited references for the various layers
of the high voltage cable affords no guidance for one of ordinary
skill in the art to select the specifically claimed structure.
It is submitted that "Appellant counts six different choices for
the core of the cable, three different choices for the first
layer, four different choices for the second layer, five
different choices for the third layer, five different choices for
the fourth layer, and four different choices for the fifth layer"
(page 10 of principal brief, second paragraph). Appellant
concludes that by his calculation "these choices provide seventy-
two hundred different high voltage cable configurations that can
be made up from among these choices" (page 11 of principal brief,
penultimate paragraph).
What is overlooked if not obscured by appellant's argument
is that all that is necessary to arrive at the high voltage cable
of claim 1 is to add an additional single layer to the high
voltage cable of Hastings '827, and select conventional cable
materials for the features of the dependent claims. It is well
settled that a selection of some from among many indiscriminately
from the prior art, including a selection from a list of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007