Appeal No. 2004-0031
Application 09/485,656
lines 25-28]. Coaxial cables are required to transmit RF signals
over long distances. The artisan would have been concerned about
potential loss of the signals by way of diffusion. Therefore, we
find that the artisan would not have been motivated to use the
technique disclosed by Hollander in making the inner conductor of
claim 4. The examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is simply not
supported by the specific prior art relied on.
We now consider the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 6-8 based on the teachings of Hafner in view of Hollander
and Mildner and further in view of one or more of Barrett,
Buckel, Shotey and Gerland. Even though these claims were
rejected using a different combination of references than was
used for claim 4, appellants have not separately argued these
claims, and instead, have indicated that these claims should
stand or fall with claim 4 [brief, page 2]. We have considered
the additional teachings of Barrett, Buckel, Shotey and Gerland,
and we find that none of these references overcome the
deficiencies of the basic combination discussed above.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 6-8.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007