Appeal No. 95-0785
Application 07/748,708
(column 4, lines 21-24). We find that the examiner has failed to
meet the initial burden of proof since the prior art product does
not reasonably appear to be the same or only slightly different
from the product claimed. Accordingly, the rejection of claims
18 and 20 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 is reversed.
C. The Rejection Under § 103
The EMI shielding sheet of appealed claim 1 comprises a
carrier material and a partially embedded metal fiber mat, with
the requirement that the carrier material have a softening
temperature and the metal mat having a melting temperature lower
than the highest temperature reached during the thermoforming
process.
None of the references applied by the examiner disclose or
suggest that the metal mat must have a melting temperature lower
than the highest temperature reached during the thermoforming
process (as admitted by the examiner in regard to the primary
references, see page 4 of the answer). Contrary to the
examiner’s assertions, Gaughan makes no distinction between high
and low melting metals in the EMI shielding sheets (see Gaughan,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007