Appeal No. 2003-1485
Application No. 09/885,086
support arguments of unexpected results, we are unpersuaded by
this argument.
Appellant asserts (Brief, page 8) that Dembiak is not
analogous art. Appellant argues that the field of endeavor is
different because the invention relates to "data cables with
individually shielded twisted pairs" whereas Dembiak relates to
"communication cables with sealed moisture barriers." However,
both the invention and Dembiak are in the field of communication
cables, and, therefore, are within the same field of endeavor.
Thus, we are unconvinced that the examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 7 over Deitz in view of Dembiak. Accordingly, we
will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7.
For the rejection of claims 2 and 3, the examiner adds
Gareis to the primary combination of Deitz and Dembiak.
Appellant contends (Brief, pages 8-9) that Gareis "has nothing to
do with preventing water penetration" and, thus, "[o]ne modifying
the Deitz cable, to prevent water penetration would therefore
utilize the Dembiak design." However, Dembiak uses an
overlapping edge not just to prevent water penetration, but also
to reduce slippage. Gareis (column 1, lines 33-35) explains that
prior art designs with overlaps still have a loosening of the
shield where it overlaps (which in turn causes impedance
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007