Appeal No. 95-4206
Application No. 07/803,465
artisan would have no problem constructing the front and rear
panel portions with such apertures, knowing the frequency or
wavelength of the particular electromagnetic waves which are
to be shielded. Our view is buttressed by the Tochiyama
declaration (Paper No. 27), which describes how the artisan
would measure the amount of electromagnetic emissions emitted
from a device and, knowing the relationship between frequency
and wavelength of electromagnetic waves, the artisan would
have routinely determined the size of the apertures necessary
to shield electromagnetic waves of a given frequency.
We find that the examiner does not have a reasonable
basis on which to challenge the sufficiency of the instant
disclosure and, as such, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 11 through 19, 29 through 36 and 40
through 48 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
We turn now to the rejection of claims 5 through 7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by Takahashi. We will
not sustain this rejection as Takahashi fails to teach all of
the claim limitations.
In particular, claim 5 requires a top cover “which forms
a passage of cooling air and directs air flow through a gap
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007