Appeal No. 2000-2146
Application No. 09/197,513
would not change the principal operation of the insulator and in
fact, provides shielding between the pair of conductors (id.).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Where, as
here, a conclusion of obviousness is premised upon a combination
of references, the examiner must identify a reason, suggestion,
or motivation which would have led an inventor to combine those
references. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. V. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
However, “the Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also
explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
A review of Guilleaume reveals that the reference relates to
insulating bare electric cables or conductors that are used in
telephonic transmission (lines 7-15). A strip of insulating
material, such as paper, separates a pair of bare conductors and
creates two spiral grooves to hold the conductors once the whole
assembly is twisted together (lines 21-43). A number of such
insulated conductors are grouped together to form a cable, as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007