Appeal No. 97-2481
Application No. 08/480,964
opinion, Reynolds and Anderson do not suggest improving the APA
of Fig. 1 by forming rectangular bores in the ferrite filter.
With regard to (1), a prima facie case of obviousness may be
rebutted by a showing of unexpected results, but in order to do
so, "objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate
in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to
support." In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296
(CCPA 1980). See also In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14
USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mr. Hanna and Dr. Elco both
state in their declarations that Dr. Elco mathematically modeled
or simulated the circular bore and rectangular bore
configurations, and found that the inductance or EMI shielding of
the latter was approximately five times that of the former.
According to Mr. Hanna (declaration paragraphs 9 to 13), a person
of apparently at least ordinary skill in this art, the magnitude
of this improvement was "quite unexpected" to himself and others,
and in his opinion "it would not have been obvious to one skilled
in the art that changing a cylindrical bore to a rectangular bore
in a device of the type claimed would result in such a
significant improvement in EMI shielding performance" (paragraph
13).
The problem with this evidence, however, is that Mr. Hanna
also states in his declaration that "EMI shielding would not
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007