Ex Parte Waltz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

10389790 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/389,790 03/17/2003 Peter Michael Waltz 18017 (26,764 USA) 2995
7590 06/19/2012
JAECKLE, FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP
8th Floor
12 Fountain Plaza
Buffalo, NY 14202-2922
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PETER MICHAEL WALTZ
____________________

Appeal 2009-014318
Application 10/389,790
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014318
Application 10/389,790

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2-
9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 32. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 4 under appeal reads as follows:
4. A coaxial cable transmission line comprising:
an outer conductor;
a center conductor having a conductive surface with a
continuous recessed pattern on the conductive surface wherein the
pattern runs continuously along the length of the conductor and
defines a non-recessed conductive surface on the center conductor;
a polytetrafluoroethylene material in continuous, direct contact
with the non-recessed conductive surface of the center conductor, said
material separating the outer conductor from the center conductor;
and,
wherein the continuous recessed pattern is configured to
prevent the material from moving in an axial direction when the
transmission line is exposed to repetitive and extreme temperature
fluctuations.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28,
and 32 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Nixon (US 4,626,810), Gray (US 543,960), and Goto (US2003/0178224
A1).

Appeal 2009-014318
Application 10/389,790

3
Appellant’s Contention
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 4, 12, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “[a]pplicant submits
that the Examiner has improperly succumbed to the ‘tempting but forbidden
zone of hindsight’. (In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998 (Fed.Cir.1999)).”
(App. Br. 15).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has erred due to the use of hindsight. We agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has erred.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 32 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, and
32 have not been shown to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9, 11-14, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 27,
28, and 32 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj