Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
outer side folded inward over itself, whereas claim 2 and Fig. 2C have the
inner side folded outward over itself. Second, Appellant has completely
twisted the rejection set forth by the Examiner. The Examiner's rejection
suggests that the shield of Deitz should overlap and be bonded to itself for
reasons suggested by Dembiak, as explained supra.
Gareis (col. 1, ll. 33-35) explains that prior art designs with overlaps
still have a loosening of the shield where it overlaps (which in turn causes
impedance instability). Gareis solves the problem of the prior art by having
the longitudinal side folded as recited in claims 2 and 3 (and shown in
Figures 2C and 2D, respectively). See Gareis, Figs. 3 and 7, respectively.
Accordingly, Gareis improves upon the design of Dembiak in terms of
slippage and opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine
Gareis with Deitz and Dembiak, and we will sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 2 and 3.
Appellant (Br. 13 and 14), in arguing against the Examiner's rejection
of claims 4 and 8, and 5 and 9, asserts that
[t]he Examiner now wants to take the non-bonded shielding of
a multi shielded coaxial cable and somehow use an isolated
portion thereof into the Examiner's modified high speed data
cable's individual twisted pair cable shield for claims 4 and 8.
This stretches the concept of the prior art suggesting the
claimed invention and is contrary to the law and improper."
Appellant has merely concluded that the combination is improper without
specifically pointing out an error in the Examiner's rejection. Therefore, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, and 9.
For claims 6 and 10, Appellant (Br. 14) refers to Fig. 2d as showing
both overlapping sides being folded prior to being overlapped. However, as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013