Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Section 102 rejection of Claims 1-3 and 12 over
Berends.
Section 103 rejection over Berends
The examiner has rejected Claims 4-6, 8, 9, and 13 as obvious over Berends. (See Answer,
page 6.) With regard to the limitations of Claims 4-6, requiring that the thickness of the
electroconductive lacquer conductor be less than 200 micrometers, the examiner notes that Berends
discloses that the lacquer layer is “thin but not a specific thickness,” and that a suitable thickness would
have been found “since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine
skill in the art.” (Id.)
Appellants’ position is set forth on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief. Appellants do not dispute that
the thickness is a “result effective variable,” but appear to argue that such would only be recognized if
one were to recognize that the lacquer serves as a conductor in a “coaxial cable.” However, as we
have previously determined, Claims 1-3 (from which Claims 4-6 depend) do not distinguish over the
cable disclosed by Berends.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007