Appeal No. 2000-2146
Application No. 09/197,513
7 over Guilleaume in view of Tessier and Simons cannot be
sustained.
We note that the Examiner relies on Aladenize in combination
with Guilleaume, Tessier and Simons to reject claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Although Aladenize describes the use of a
semiconductive screening formed of a polymer matrix in electrical
cables for stabilizing the field at the insulator-conductor
interface (col. 3, lines 11-14 and lines 48-56), nothing in the
reference is directed to a two-part shielding structure for
shielding insulated conductor pairs. Assuming, arguendo, that it
would have been obvious to combine the semiconductor polymer of
Aladenize with the teachings of Guilleaume, Tessier and Simons as
held by the Examiner, Aladenize does not overcome the
deficiencies in the rejection of base claim 1 discussed above.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 4 over Guilleaume, Tessier and Simons in view of Aladenize.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
We make the following new ground of rejection for claim 1
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007