Appeal No. 2007-1237
Application No. 10/813,367
The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Delphin and Smalley; and,
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Delphin, Smalley, and Burns, Jr. (Answer 4-5).
DISCUSSION
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Delphin (4,717,505) in view of Smalley (6,183,714).
Delphin discloses a composition comprising polyethylene (a), at least about
3 parts by weight, based on the weight of component (a), carbon fiber, and a
conductive carbon black (c) other than the carbon fiber, the carbon black being
present in an amount at least about 10 parts by weight, based on the weight of the
component (a) (col. 3, ll. 29-34). Delphin differs from the claimed invention in
that the composition does not comprise carbon nanotubes and Delphin does not
disclose the composition is used to surround a conductor.
Smalley discloses a composition comprising carbon nanotubes. Smalley
discloses that carbon nanotubes are useful as strengthening agents in composite
materials and is useful in combining with other forms of carbon such as carbon
black (col. 3, ll. 61-65).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to replace the carbon fiber of Delphin with carbon nanotubes to obtain the
advantages of using carbon nanotubes as strengthening agents in the composite
material. The Examiner also concluded that it would also have been obvious to use
the composite of Delphin to surround a conductor since the composition of
Delphin provides both electrical and mechanical properties.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013