Ex Parte MOE et al - Page 2




         Appeal No. 2004-0031                                                       
         Application 09/485,656                                                     


         The disclosed invention pertains to a coaxial cable.                       
         Representative claim 4 is reproduced as follows:                           
              4.   A coaxial cable comprising:                                      
              a cylindrical plastic rod;                                            
              an electrically conductive tubular inner conductor                    
         surrounding said plastic rod, provided by forming a metal strip            
         into a tubular configuration with the longitudinal side edges of           
         the strip butted together and joined by a continuous longitudinal          
         weld, and adhesively bonded to the plastic rod;                            
              a continuous foam polymer dielectric layer closely                    
         surrounding the inner conductor; and                                       
              a tubular metallic outer sheath closely surrounding the foam          
         polymer dielectric layer.                                                  
         The examiner relies on the following references:                           
         Mildner                       3,309,455          Mar. 14, 1967             
         Gerland et al. (Gerland)      3,516,859          June 23, 1970             
         Hafner, Jr. (Hafner)          4,399,322          Aug. 16, 1983             
         Hollander                     5,111,002          May  05, 1992             
         Barrett et al. (Barrett)      5,371,823          Dec. 06, 1994             
         Buckel                        5,500,488          Mar. 19, 1996             
         Shotey et al. (Shotey)        5,527,993          June 18, 1996             
         The following rejections are on appeal before us:                          
         1. Claims 2-5, 10, 19-22, 24 and 26-28 stand rejected                      
         under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings          
         of Hafner in view of Hollander and Mildner.                                
         2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                     
         being unpatentable over the teachings of Hafner in view of                 
         Hollander and Mildner and further in view of Barrett.                      

                                        -2-                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007