Appeal No. 2006-0452
Application No. 10/442,040
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as buttressed by the
following remarks, we sustain each of the three separately stated rejections of the
claims on appeal.
As to the first stated rejection of certain claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102, arguments are presented only as to independent claim 1 and its
dependent claim 15. As to independent claim 1, appellants only assert on pages 3 and
4 of that brief that the examiner mistakenly asserts that Saunders teaches the claimed
corona-resistant wire and its diameter. At this point we note that there is no positive
recitation of a wire per se, that is, there is no positive recitation of an underlying
electrically conductive core. Claim 1 recites “a diameter of the wire is between 20 μm
and 80 μm”. This claim does not positively recite that the diameter of the entire wire
comprising a primary insulation layer and at least one additional layer is between this
claimed range. It is understood, when dependent claim 2 is studied, that the claimed “a
diameter” of claim 1 does not include the additional layer since dependent claim 2 only
recites that the primary insulation layer has the diameter that is claimed in independent
claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007