Appeal No. 95-4206
Application No. 07/803,465
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sarraf in
view of Dodson and Varaiya.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the many briefs and answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 11
through 19, 29 through 36 and 40 through 48 under 35 U.S.C.
112, first and second paragraphs.
With regard to the first and second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. 112, the examiner points to lines 18-20 of claim 1,
lines 21-23 of claim 11, lines 18-20 of claim 29, lines 20-22
of claim 34, lines 18-20 of claim 36 and lines 21-23 of claim
40 and states that it is unclear as to how small the apertures
must be in order to allow for the front and rear panel
portions to continue to shield electromagnetic waves. The
examiner concludes that the disclosure is not enabling since
the disclosure fails to provide the dimension of the apertures
necessary to perform the function of shielding electromagnetic
waves.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007