Appeal No. 2006-2276
Application No. 10/426,594
answer address this argument by specifically pointing to the showings in
Figure 1 of Schauer which depicts two reinforcing sheets/moldings 12. In
essentially arguing only the written description in Schauer, appellants have
lost sight of their own admitted prior art in their corresponding discussion at
page 2 of the specification as filed.
Appellants respond to these positions of the examiner in the answer at
pages 4 and 5 of the reply brief. It appears to us that the showing in Figure 1
of Schauer may essentially comprise the claimed segment with different
noted portions depicted in this figure. The arguments focus, at page 4, upon
the view that one section of the ribbon cable 10 in Schauer is not wound in a
spiral. To the extent these arguments assert that only one section has this
capability, the claim merely requires “at least one,” whereas it is clearly
recognized that two sections 12 are shown in Schauer’s Figure 1 as
comprising parts of the ribbon cable 10.
Furthermore, appellants’ own position at the top of page 4 of the reply
brief recognizes that the two reinforcing sheets 12 are taught to have a radius
of curvature of the two ends of the cable 10 and that the two reinforcing
sheets 12 may extend over a greater length in the direction of the cable itself
as indicated at column 4, lines 17 through 21. As such, within the teachings
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007