Appeal No. 2000-2146
Application No. 09/197,513
Simons et al. 3,911,200 Oct. 7, 1975
Tessier et al. (Tessier) 5,132,488 Jul. 21, 1992
Aladenize et al. (Aladenize) 5,416,155 May 16, 1995
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Guilleaume in view of Tessier and
Simons.2
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Guilleaume in view of Tessier and Simons and
further in view of Aladenize.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
December 22, 1999) for the Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief
(Paper No. 9, filed November 8, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 12, filed December 22, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant points
out that Guilleaume uses bare conductors individually separated
by an insulating strip or finned member instead of a pair of
insulated conductors on each side of the strip or within the
grooves of the finned member (brief, pages 9 & 10). Appellant
2 The Examiner incorrectly includes claim 5 in the statement of
rejection (answer, page 3), whereas claim 5 has been canceled at the time of
filing the Request for Continued Application, filed November 23, 1998.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007