Appeal No. 2006-2276
Application No. 10/426,594
recognize their own admissions at the bottom of page 3 of the brief with
respect to their own prior art and the examiner’s emphasis of this at pages 15
and 16 of the answer.
Lastly, we note, in passing, that the nature of the subject matter
actually presented in the independent claims on appeal and argued before us
would appear to have been obvious to the artisan based upon appellants’
admitted prior art discussion at specification page 1, line 12 through page 3,
line 2. The admitted prior art had a corresponding plastic extrusion coating
for protection over the individual cable branches which appears to
correspond to the flexible reinforcing sheet(s). The method of manufacture
recited in independent claim 10 requires that this element be laminated
rather than extruded according to the admitted prior art teachings.
Appellants admit in the paragraph bridging specification pages 2 and 3 that
it was known in the art that extrusion coating was rather expensive in the art.
Thus, to minimize manufacturing expenses and simplify manufacturing, it
would have been obvious to the artisan to have laminated such an extra
coating for a protection sheet in the same manner they already admitted that
the insulating cover sheets were made in the art, such as by laminating them
together, as generally indicated at specification page 1, lines 14 through 19.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007