Appeal No. 1997-3254
Application No. 08/495,330
According to the examiner, the references of Berends and Sato provide evidence that the
subject matter as a whole, including the dependent claim limitations concerning a thin metal outer layer
over the electroconductive lacquer conductor, would have been obvious to the artisan. Sato discloses
a coaxial cable comprising two separate outer conductor layers, and teaches addition of a second layer
“for improving the shielding characteristics as taught by Sato....” (Answer, page 7.)
However, when considering whether to combine teachings of the two references, the purpose
(i.e., intended use) of the cables becomes pertinent, unlike the previous inquiry regarding anticipation.
It is not apparent why an artisan would seek to improve “shielding characteristics” of the cable
disclosed by Berends, since Berends discloses cable for delivery of high voltage to an apparatus such
as an X-ray tube, and the cable disclosed by Sato is for use with high-frequency devices such as
ultrasonic diagnostic equipment. Sato is concerned with decreasing crosstalk; see Figure 4 and column
3, lines 3 through 16. A purpose of the arrangement of the second outer conductor in Sato is to
enhance strength with flexibility; see, for example, column 1, lines 10 through 46 of the reference. The
cable of Berends, in contradistinction, is comprised of a rigid pipe as the outer insulator.
As pointed out by appellants on page 15 of the Brief, Berends teaches that the inner conductive
element carries substantially all the current. While appellants’ observation is consistent with our
conclusion (supra) that the subject matter of Claims 4-6 would have been obvious in view of Berends,
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007