Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of the appealed claims, we note initially that
Appellants’ arguments against this rejection are organized
according to a suggested grouping of claims indicated at page 4 of
the Brief. We will consider the claims separately only to the
extent that separate arguments for patentability are presented.
Any dependent claim not separately argued will stand or fall with
its base claim. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217
USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claim 1, the representative claim
for Appellants first suggested grouping (including claims 1-9 and
11-14), the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes to modify the twisted pair cable conductor disclosure of
Brorein. According to the Examiner (Answer, page 6) Brorein
describes an electrical cable having first and second conductor
pairs with each pair including two individual conductors twisted
together with a predetermined twist length with at least one of the
individual conductors being pre-twisted before being twisted with
the other individual conductor to form a conductor pair. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007