Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
to protect against external electrical signals, it would appear that the two
types of cables are concerned, at least in part, with the same problems. Also,
since both shields are to prevent electronic interference and are formed of
aluminum, the metal shields of Dembiak and Deitz are sufficiently
equivalent that the skilled artisan would have expected the overlapping and
bonding of the edges of the shield in Deitz to improve the shielding in Deitz
the same as it does in Dembiak.
Appellant (Br. 8) relies on the declaration of Galen Gareis as evidence
that the skilled artisan would not find claim 1 obvious over Deitz in view of
Dembiak. Gareis states (Declaration, page 3) that
A skilled artisan in view of Dembiak 3,703,605 and Dietz [sic]
5,956,445 would not be motivated in order to prevent slippage
or water penetration into Dietz's [sic] twisted pairs to bond the
individual shields shown in Dietz. One, rather, following the
teachings of Dembiak, would utilize an overall shield and
perhaps an additional overall binder.
This statement, however, flies in the face of the explicit teachings of
Dembiak. Specifically, as explained supra, Dembiak teaches that to enhance
the effectiveness of a metallic shield used to protect against external
electrical signals, slippage should be eliminated by overlapping and
adhesively bonding the edges of the shield. Deitz discloses a metallic shield
for the individually twisted pair, and such shields are used to prevent
electronic interference. Therefore, on its face the teachings of Dembiak
appear to apply to the metallic shields of the individually twisted pair. As
Gareis fails to point to any particular teachings that would suggest
otherwise, or even to explain why the above-noted teachings would not have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013