Appeal No. 2001-1941
Application No. 09/023,469
signal over a “twisted pair” wireline. Whereas
Lee teaches the transmission of optical frequency
signals over “optical fibers” (col. 7, line[s]
44-45) and baseband signals over “T1 carrier cables”
(col. 7, lines 46-47), Baba teaches the transmission of
intermediate frequency signals over “leaky coaxial
cable” (col. 2, line 34). Furthermore, nowhere does
Baba or Lee teach or suggest any deficiency with
coaxial cable or optical fiber.
Appellants additionally argue (brief, page 8) that “[e]ven
though Baba taught the transmission of signals at IF
frequencies to minimize power loss, even Baba didn’t see, as
did the inventors of the present invention, that the use of
IF frequencies obviated the need for coaxial cable.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5 through 7 and
11 through 13 is reversed because “no proper combination of
Lee and Baba teaches or suggests the present invention”
(brief, page 9; reply brief, page 5). The obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 4, 8 through 10 and 14 through
18 is likewise reversed because the teachings of Nakagoshi
fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the combined
teachings of Lee and Baba.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007