Appeal 2006-2778
Application 10/780,021
surrounding the core of the cable (claims 33 and 56), (2) the swelling
powder being made of conventional poly (sodium acrylate) (claim 38), and
(3) disposing the swelling material between the area around the thin sleeve
and the thermoplastic material forming the body of the lead-in core of the
stranded conductors (claims 39, 48, and 53). The Examiner cites Asai as
teaching these features and concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to coat such a
swellable material on the electrical components of Osornio to enhance the
cable’s water blocking properties (Answer 4-10).
Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach or suggest including
a moisture-swellable polymer in Osornio’s cable, let alone a specific
polysodium acrylate homopolymer selected from the multitude of polymers
and various ingredients disclosed in Asai. Appellants emphasize that several
factors must be considered to achieve the claimed cable construction
including, among other things, (1) the position or arrangement of the layer of
the swelling agent coating on the cable; (2) which cable part(s) should be
coated; and (3) how and when the cable should be coated (Br. 8-12; Reply
Br. 1-8). Appellants also argue that the prior art does not disclose
electrostatically applying the water-swellable polymer as claimed (Br. 15).
The Examiner responds that the prior art provides ample motivation to
incorporate a waterproofing filler taught by Asai in Osornio’s cable because
(1) Osornio expressly states a concern with premature aging of the cable due
to water intrusion, and (2) Asai teaches a filler component that may be
applied to cable components (e.g., wires, rods, tubes, etc.) for water-
blocking purposes (Answer 11-12).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013