Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
Claims 4 through 6 and 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Deitz in view of Dembiak and Krabec.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 30, 2006) for the
Examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
Appellant's Brief (filed March 16, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed June 30,
2006) for Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior art
references, and the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejections of claims 1 through 10.
Appellant argues (Br. 7) that Deitz fails to disclose that each
individual shield is overlapped and bonded along its longitudinal length, as
recited in claim 1. The figures of Deitz show the seam for the shield two
different ways – as two edges meeting but not overlapping, for shields 36
and 36A in Figures 4 and 5, and as two edges overlapping, for shields 16 and
16A in Figures 1 and 6. Thus, we find that Deitz at least suggests
overlapping the two edges of the shield along the longitudinal length of the
individual shield. However, we agree that Deitz does not disclose bonding
the overlapped edges. The Examiner, recognizing that Deitz does not teach
bonding the overlapped edges, relies on Dembiak for bonding.
Appellant contends (Br. 7-8) that voice type communication cables,
the type of cable disclosed by Dembiak, are not concerned with the same
problems that arise in high speed data cables, like those of Deitz. In other
words, Dembiak, being directed to voice type communication cables, "does
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013