Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
Examiner further asserts (id.) that Brorein discloses the claimed
invention except for an explicit disclosure that the first and
second conductor pairs have differing twist lengths. To address
this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Newmoyer ‘173 which, as
illustrated in Figure 4, discloses a cable with conductor pairs
with different twist lengths l1 and l2. In the Examiner’s analysis,
the Examiner makes particular reference to column 3, lines 59-65
and column 4, lines 4-10 of Newmoyer ‘173 and concludes that the
skilled artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to
apply the differing twist length conductor pair teachings of
Newmoyer ‘173 to Brorein. In the Examiner’s view (id.), these
passages from Newmoyer ‘173 provide clear motivation for the
proposed combination with Brorein “... in order to produce a cable
having conductor pairs with a configuration that will significantly
reduce cross-talk... and allow the cable to be flexed without
damaging the physical spacing of the twisted pairs....”
After reviewing the Examiner’s analysis, it is our view that
such analysis carefully points out the teachings of the Brorein and
Newmoyer ‘173 references, reasonably indicates the perceived
differences between this prior art and the claimed invention, and
provides reasons as to how and why the prior art teachings would
have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007