Appeal No. 2006-0737
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,944
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,448
The Examiner has found that Leef describes a coaxial cable
comprising a metal tape including a metal layer which has a
thickness of approximately 1 μm formed from copper. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 5, lines 14-16.)
The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
use the copper layer of Leef as copper is a good conductor.
Further, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
adjust the thickness of the layer as it was known in the art that
a thicker layer would provide better shielding, while a thinner
layer would provide better flexibility. Finally, the examiner
notes that optimization of these properties involves only routine
skill in the art. (Examiner’s answer, paragraph spanning pages 5
and 6.)
The appellant has not contested either the findings of fact
or the conclusions of law made by the examiner in this rejection.
Rather, the appellant states that he incorporates his previous
arguments made with respect to claim 1 relating to a deposited
metal layer. (Appeal Brief, page 10, last two paragraphs.)
As these rejections also include the Leef reference, we
observe that the rationale in reversing the rejections of claims 1
and 7 no longer applies. It is well established that the Board
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007