Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
invention. In our opinion, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since proper
motivation for combining the Brorein and Newmoyer ‘173 references
has not been established. In particular, Appellants contend
(Brief, pages 10-12; Reply Brief, page 5) that Brorein, aside from
not disclosing that the conductor pairs have differing twist
lengths as in appealed claim 1, actually specifies (columns 11,
lines 45-46) that the lay length or twist length of the conductor
pairs is the same. In Appellants’ view, given Brorein’s disclosure
of having the same twist length for the conductor pairs, there is
an express teaching away from any combination with Newmoyer ‘173 to
provide conductor pairs with differing twist lengths.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007