Ex Parte Stipes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2007

10869805 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON A. STIPES
____________

Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805
Technology Center 2800
____________

HEARD: January 11, 2007
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and HOWARD B.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner's final rejection of
claims 1 through 10, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a high speed data cable with plural
individual twisted pairs of conductors. Each pair includes a shield wrapped
around the pair of conductors and overlapping itself along the length of the
Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805

conductors. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A high speed data cable comprising:

a plurality of individual twisted pairs, each individual twisted pair
includes a first insulated conductor twisted about a second insulated
conductor;

a jacket surrounding said plurality of individual twisted pairs,

at least two of said twisted pairs each being laterally wrapped with a
metal composite shield having a polymer layer and a metal layer, and said
metal layer having a thickness of from about 0.0003 inches to 0.001 inches,

each of said shields has an inner surface and an outer surface opposite
the inner surface and said outer surface facing said jacket,

each shield has a first overlapping longitudinal side and a second
overlapping longitudinal side, and

said first and second overlapping sides being bonded together by a
bonding agent and wherein bonding of each of said shields affects improved
resistance to deformation and impedance stability.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Dembiak 3,703,605 Nov. 21, 1972
Krabek 4,477,693 Oct. 16, 1984
Gareis 5,486,649 Jan. 23, 1996
Deitz 5,956,445 Sep. 21, 1999

Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deitz in view of Dembiak.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Deitz in view of Dembiak and Gareis.
2
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
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
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
Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805

been seen by the skilled artisan to apply to Deitz's shields for the
individually twisted pairs, Gareis's conclusion is not convincing.
Appellant further argues (Br. 9) that Dembiak does not discuss
impedance stability or resistance to deformation. Appellant again relies
upon Gareis, who states (Declaration, page 3) that
The teachings concerning Dietz's [sic] overall shield and its
ability to reduce slippage or prevent water penetration does not
suggest that bonding Dietz's [sic] individual shields could
prevent deformation and reduce impedance instability.
11. One would not expect, in view of Dembiak's
teachings that a bonded overall shield reduces slippage and
prevents water seepage, that bonding individual shields shown
in Dietz [sic] would reduce deformation and increase
impedance stability.

Gareis concludes that reduced deformation and increased impedance
stability are unexpected results.
Again we find Gareis's conclusions to be unpersuasive. First,
Dembiak discloses (col. 3, ll. 25-27) that "[t]he use of a shielding layer with
a sealed seam also has been shown to have higher strength characteristics
necessary to withstand repetitious bending of the cable." Thus, Dembiak
suggests that a sealed seam will prevent deformation. Further, as noted
supra, one of Dembiak's goals is to prevent wrinkling or rupture of the
shielding strip. Appellant discloses (Specification, page 2) that the
impedance of an ISTP is
influenced by the presence of the shield wrapped around its
circumference. Present day shields can suffer from variations
in geometry. Very small variations in the geometry and spacing
of the overall shield can drastically affect the cable's
impedance. The shield, commonly made of a thin metallic foil,
6
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
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
Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805

indicated supra, Fig. 2D shows and claim 3 recites only one side being
folded prior to being overlapped. Accordingly, Appellant's argument fails to
convince us of error in the Examiner's rejection, and we will sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 10.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Appeal 2006-3339
Application 10/869,805

Robert F. I. Conte
LEE, MANN, SMITH, MCWILLIAMS, SWEENEY & OHLSON
P.O. Box 2786
Chicago, IL 60690-2786
10