Appeal No. 2006-0737
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,944
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,847,448
therefore, makes up for any deficiency of the principal reference
JP ‘321 as regards the layer being “deposited.”
Accordingly, as the Appellant has provided no separate
argument for reversing the rejection of claims 2-4, 6 and 9 beyond
the lack of a description of the layer being “deposited,” we shall
sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, and 9.
III(A). The Rejection of Claims 5 and 8 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over JP ‘321 in view of JP ‘622, further in
view of FDJ.
The examiner has found that FDJ describes a composite coaxial
cable including a plurality of coaxial cables spirally wound about
each other. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, last paragraph). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
form a composite cable as described by FDJ for multiple
transmission purposes. Id.
The appellant states that he incorporates his previous
arguments made with respect to claim 1 relating to a deposited
metal layer and claim 7 relating to the insulation on the
conductor. (Appeal Brief, page 11, last two full paragraphs).
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007