Appeal No. 2006-0737
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,944
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,448
(Column 1, lines 56-60).
The specification does not specifically define “deposited.”
The Appellant urges that depositing means “for example, a
chemical vapor deposition process” (Appeal Brief, page 4, last
line). This type of deposition, it is alleged, gives a thinner
thickness allowing for greater bending. (Id., page 5, lines 1-3.)
Again, the specification is silent on this point.
The specification does state that:
Over the laterally wound shielding layer 3 is wound a metal
depositing tape 4 in which a deposition layer 42 of
electrically conductive metal such as copper or tin is
deposited onto a plastic tape 41 such as polyester tape, and
the deposition layer 42 is positioned radially inwardly. . .
(column 2, lines 21-26)(emphasis added)
Further:
The thickness of the metal deposition layer 42 of the metal
depositing tape 4 must be at least 0.2 μm in order to obtain
a sufficient shielding characteristic. More particularly, if
the metal deposition layer 42 has a thickness of about 1 μm,
a greatly improved shielding characteristic is attainable.
(Column 2, lines 39-43)(emphasis added)
Finally:
. . . the metal deposition layer of the present invention may
be sufficiently bonded to the plastic tape by deposition so
that the shielding characteristic may be maintained even
under a severe bending condition of the cable . . . (Column
3, lines 15-20)(emphasis added)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007