Appeal 2007-2358
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,888
therefore already considered the question of patentability over Oestreich and
Conti, and that there can be no "substantial new question" of patentability
over these references.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. First, Dura Line's
characterization of Oestreich does not state that Oestrich describes
fluoropolymers, including Teflon PFA (said to be a perfluoroalkoxy resin:
Oestreich at 2:53-58), as materials for the inner layer of the protective
casing. The Examiner, however, raised this issue expressly in support of the
case for anticipation. (Final Rejection, mailed 1 July 2005 ("Final
Rejection") at 2; Examiner's Answer mailed 6 March 2006 ("Answer") at 4.)
Second, Dura Line's characterization does not state that Oestreich describes
polyethylene as a suitable material for the outer layer of the protective
casing. The Examiner, however, raised this issue expressly in support of the
case for anticipation in this reexamination. (Final Rejection at 2; Answer
at 5.) Thus, Dura Line did not put the issue of anticipation before the
Examiner during the prosecution of the original application for patent. We
accordingly reject Dura Line's arguments that a substantial new question of
patentability has not been identified with respect to Oestreich and Conti and
claim 1 of the 442 patent under reexamination.
We also note with interest that Dura Line, in its Information
Disclosure Statement to the Examiner, characterized Oestreich as teaching a
conductor for "optical cables" and for "fiber optic cables" as more specific
embodiments of "transmission elements."
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013