Appeal No. 1999-1638
Application No. 08/721,395
reducing crosstalk. As shown in Baker’s Figure 3, and described at column 4, line 45
through column 5, line 24, conductor pairs are crossed over to substantially reduce
crosstalk between each other. Contact blades 321 are shown to be flat blade portions,
connecting with the crossed-over intermediate portions of the conductors, which in turn are
connected with insulation displacement contact (IDC) portions for receiving individual
wires.
The instant rejection, set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer, combines the
teachings of Davis with those of Baker. In particular, Davis is relied upon as disclosing an
electrical connector having conductors 36 (Fig. 1) “staggered longitudinally in the
conductor housing and having shorter or longer lengths with the intermediate portions
alternately situated.” (Answer, page 4.)
We disagree with appellants’ position, as set out in the Brief, that Baker requires
using conductors which are identical to each other. Column 5, lines 13-23 of Baker
teaches that “identical” conductors are the preferred embodiment, but explicitly suggests
that two different conductors may be used if one should wish to “further minimize the
crosstalk.” We conclude, however, for the other reasons advanced on pages 7 and 8 of
appellants’ Brief, that a prima facie case of unpatentability has not been established.
The rejection states that the combination is suggested “in order to avoid
interference within the connector housing when the conductors are connected to the wires.”
(Answer, page 4.) There is nothing pointed out in either reference, however, to serve as a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007