Appeal No. 2004-0031
Application 09/485,656
Appellants respond that based on the teachings of the
three applied references, the artisan would have been motivated
to make the inner conductor of Hafner in the manner taught by
Mildner rather than in the manner taught by Hollander because
Mildner relates to signal transmission and Hollander relates to
thermocouples [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 4 and of the other claims within this group.
Although the examiner has pointed to Hollander as teaching the
formation of a metal sheath by forming a metal strip into a
tubular configuration with the longitudinal side edges of the
strip butted together and joined by a weld, we agree with
appellants that the applied prior art does not support the
combination proposed by the examiner. First, we agree with
appellants that the artisan in the field of coaxial cables for
transmitting RF signals would not have looked to the thermocouple
art for pertinent teachings. There is no suggestion in Hollander
that the metal strip disclosed therein has any use in a coaxial
cable for transmitting RF signals or that the signals conducted
in Hollander have any relationship to RF signals. Second,
Hollander discloses that welded metal strips suffer from
diffusion problems into the surrounding environment [column 1,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007