Appeal No. 96-0526
Application No. 08/008,291
Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-11
Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-11 recite the ground terminal addressed
above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims for the same reason as for Claim 1 discussed above.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites a method including the step of coating an
inner wall of the housing with a resin which contains conductive
particles to form a conductive shield. The examiner contends
that it would have been obvious to use resin instead of epoxy as
a bonding substance in Lill because resin and epoxy are
interchangeable and well known in the art. Appellants argue that
even if that were so, there is no suggestion to use a resin which
contains conductive particles. Appeal Brief at 25, lines 19-25;
Reply Brief at 11, lines 1-9. We agree with appellants.
The sole reference does not mention resin. The examiner
proffers no motivation to replace Lill’s epoxy with conductive
resin. As appellants point out (Appeal Brief at 10), Lill uses
epoxy to achieve a strong bond. Column 2, lines 46-58. We
discern no suggestion in the cited art to substitute conductive
resin as the bonding agent.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of Claim 6.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007