Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
rebutted by any convincing arguments from Appellants. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-9 and 11-14
which fall with claim 1, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 10 and 24, separately argued by Appellants, we
note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive
with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-14 discussed
supra, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 10
and 24. Each of these claims includes a cable structure feature
which requires that the “... conductor pairs having shortest twist
lengths are positioned diagonal relative to each other.” In
addressing this feature, the Examiner calls attention to Figure 3
of Newmoyer ‘173 as disclosing the claimed diagonal relationship
feature. In our view, however, while the Figure 3 illustration in
Newmoyer ‘173 may provide a teaching of a cable arrangement in
which two conductor pairs are arranged diagonally to a central
longitudinal axis of the cable, there is no disclosure that the
conductor pairs are positioned diagonally relative to each other as
set forth in claims 10 and 24.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the rejection
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007