Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 4
Application No. 10/075,786
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejection 1
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 9 and 27 to 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Andrieu in view of Holland.
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 lengths of material used in environments in which
said lengths of material are subjected to abrasion, chemicals, or weather
extremes, said protective cover comprising a sleeve surrounding said length of
material, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007