Appeal No. 2006-1436
Application No. 10/461,817
In response, the examiner maintains the position that the
outer woven mesh sheath 15 in Recla is “hard” because it inhibits
physical damage to the underground tube, and “must inherently
resist pressure and penetration at least to some degree over some
area” (answer, page 6).
In view of the evidence presented by appellant that the
outer woven mesh sheath 15 in Recla is not “hard,” and the lack
of evidence in the record to support the examiner’s position1
that the “generally flexible” sheath is also “hard” because it
“inhibits physical damage to the tube,” we find that appellant
has successfully traversed the use of Recla as an anticipating
teaching of the claimed invention. Thus, the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 3 is reversed.
1 Nothing in the record supports the examiner’s position that only a “hard”
outer tube will inhibit physical damage to the tube.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007