Appeal No. 1996-3947 Page 6
Application No. 08/151,741
as intended by the instant claims. The shields of Whitney are not
capable of being in a first position and a second position, as
required by the claims, unless one considers these positions to be
the shield in position covering the cables and the shield
completely removed. This position, however, seems to be an unduly
broad interpretation since claim 2 calls for the second coupling
means to be a hinge and claim 14 requires a “second pivot joint,”
neither of which is suggested by Whitney. One could look to
Pollak for a pivot joint or “hinge,” as intended by the instant
independent claims, but then the question remains as to why the
artisan with this art before him/her would have provided for the
pivot joint of Pollak on the conductive shields of Whitney. The
shields of Whitney are required to be conductive in order to act
as an electrical interference shield for the cables and, while
Whitney discloses that these shields could be made of plastic with
conductive particles embedded therein (column 4, lines 7-11), we
are of the opinion that it would be a bit of a stretch, motivated
only by appellants’ own disclosure, to conclude that it would have
been obvious to provide a hinge, as disclosed by Pollak, on the
conductive shields of Whitney to be employed as a second, inner
cover, covered by the outer cover 12 of Corsi. The conductive
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007