Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
can wrinkle, shift, and even open. The unwanted wrinkling,
shifting, and opening can occur during manufacturing,
installation, and use of the cable. The wrinkling, shifting, and
opening can result in a deleterious increase in impedance
variation.1
Since wrinkling and opening is known to cause an increase in impedance, by
preventing wrinkling or rupture, Dembiak implicitly reduces impedance
variation. Accordingly, the alleged unexpected results are actually quite
expected. Therefore, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1
and 7 over Deitz in view of Dembiak.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 3, the Examiner adds Gareis
to the primary combination. Appellant argues (Br. 10-11) that the
suggestion to bond the layers as in claim 2 comes from Appellant's
disclosure. Further, Appellant asserts that the Examiner's rejection
improperly involves making Dembiak's metal core shield a composite shield,
using that modified shield around a twisted pair rather than around the core,
folding the modified shield as in Gareis, though Gareis does not suggest that
his fold should be used for individually twisted pairs, and then bonding the
folds. For claim 3, Appellant (Br. 12) refers to the arguments for claim 2
and adds that there is no suggestion in any of the references to overlap both
sides before bonding, pointing to Fig. 2d.
First, neither claim 3 nor Appellant's Fig. 2D indicates that both sides
are to be overlapped before bonding. Instead, claim 3 and Fig. 2D have the
1 Since Appellant's disclosure fails to include a "clear and persuasive
assertion in the specification[. . .] that the fact relied on to support
patentability was the discovery of the applicants for patent," In re Wiseman,
201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979), we assume this portion represents a
known problem rather than one that Appellant discovered.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013