Appeal 2007-2580
Application 10/290,267
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Holliday in view of Schauer.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed April 24, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed September 28, 2004) and Reply Brief (filed June 26,
2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7 and also the obviousness rejection of claim 5.
OPINION
Appellants contend (App. Br. 12) that Holliday fails to disclose a
shield formed of a braid of metallic wires or a crimp sleeve pressed over the
tube connector. Appellants conclude, therefore, that Holliday fails to
anticipate claims 1, 4, and 7. For claim 5, Appellants (App. Br. 15) contend
that Schauer fails to cure the deficiencies of Holliday, but do not argue the
combinability of Schauer and Holliday. The Examiner asserts (Ans. 5-6)
that Holliday's fabric layer 17 must be a shield of braided metallic wires and
that Holliday's outer sleeve 24 satisfies the claimed crimp sleeve. The
Examiner (Ans. 5-6) cites Aldissi, US Patent No. 5,180,884, as evidence that
Holliday's fabric layer is inherently a braid of metallic wires. The issue,
therefore, is whether Holliday's fabric layer is inherently a braid of metallic
wires and whether Holliday's outer sleeve 24 is a crimp sleeve pressed over
the tube connector.
Holliday does not disclose how fabric layer 17 is made. However,
Holliday does disclose (col. 2, ll. 19-21) that cable 14 is a conventional
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013