Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
not disclose using a composite shield for twisted pair cables nor does it even
suggest that their invention could or should be used as a shield for individual
twisted pairs." Appellant continues (Br. 8) that Dembiak's metal shield is
not equivalent to that of Deitz. Further, Appellant argues that Deitz does not
suggest that individual composite shields should be bonded, and Dembiak
does not suggest shielding individually twisted pairs. Accordingly,
Appellant concludes that the combination would not have been obvious.
First, if Deitz taught that individual composite shields should be
bonded and Dembiak taught shielding individually twisted pairs, the
references each would have anticipated the claimed invention. Since neither
does anticipate the claimed invention, the question is whether the combined
teachings would have rendered the claims obvious. We find that they would
have.
Second, Appellant is reading the teachings of the two references, but
mostly of Dembiak, too narrowly. Dembiak discloses (col. 1, ll. 51-55 and
60-64) that communications cables require electrically conductive metal
shields, generally formed of a metallic strip such as aluminum, to protect
against external electrical signals. Dembiak further discloses (col. 1, ll. 55-
59) that wrinkling or rupturing of the shield should be avoided. Also,
Dembiak teaches (col. 2, ll. 12-15) that the edges of the metal shield should
be overlapped and bonded to avoid slippage along the seam to enhance the
effectiveness as a shield (as well as to create a more effective moisture
barrier). Dembiak (col. 2, ll. 32-37) uses adhesive to form the seal. Since
the foil shield around an individually twisted pair in a high speed data cable
(like that disclosed by Deitz) is to prevent electronic interference (see
Appellant's specification, page 1, lines 11-17) and the shield of Dembiak is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013