Appeal No. 1997-4200
Application No. 08/428,790
review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s rejection is
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse. The reasons for
our determination follow.
In any rejection, whether it be based on prior art
grounds or any other ground, the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of unpatentability rests on the examiner.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). In this case, the examiner has failed to meet the
initial burden of proof.
The examiner states:
Bullock, the primary reference, is directed to a
method of making a high frequency communication
cable. Bullock
passes two prefabricated extrusion coated wires
through a hot air oven to make the dielectric
coating tacky. Bullock then touches the two coated
wires to form a bonded pair. While Bullock is
silent on carefully controlling the shape or
concentricity of the coatings, it is well known in
the art of high frequency communication cables that
the concentricity of the coatings is critical to the
performance of the cable. Bullock fails to show
bonding the coated wires by touching them together
while they are still tacky from the extrusion
coating process.” [Examiner’s answer,
p. 3.]
According to the examiner, “Wermine is used to show that it is
known to bond cables together by touching them while they are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007