Appeal No. 95-0785
Application 07/748,708
b) preheating said polymeric substrate for
sufficient time for it to attain some portion of its
thermoforming temperature;
c) forming an article by placing a precut add-on
EMI shielding sheet comprising a carrier material, including its
metal mat, over said area where EMI shielding is desired;
d) heating said article for a sufficient time for
said carrier material to soften and said metal mat to melt and
for said article, including the polymeric substrate to reach
completely its thermoforming temperature;
e) thermoforming said article into a desired shape.
The examiner has relied upon the following references in
refusing to allow the appealed claims:
Kritchevsky et al. (Kritchevsky) 4,678,699 Jul. 7, 1987
Gaughan 4,689,098 Aug. 25, 1987
Komito et al. (Komito) 176823 Aug. 3, 1987
(Japanese Kokai)
Nakanishi et al. (Nakanishi) 276297 Nov. 13, 1990
(Japanese Kokai)
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Nakanishi. Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gaughan or Komito.
Claims 1-16, 18, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Nakanishi or Kritchevsky in view of Gaughan.
We reverse all stated rejections for reasons which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007