Appeal No. 97-2481
Application No. 08/480,964
connector comprising a rectangular cross-section connector and a
ferrite barrel with a cylindrical bore. The specification
discloses no relative dimensions or other parameters for the
connector and the bore, but in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his
declaration (quoted supra) Mr. Hanna indicates that putting a
rectangular cross-section connector in a bore of the same shape
does not necessarily result in increased inductance (EMI
shielding). It therefore appears that something more is required
for a "substantial increase in inductance" than simply putting a
rectangular cross-section connector in a rectangular cross-
section bore, which is not disclosed as being of any particular
size. Since the specification does not disclose what that
"something more" is, it does not appear that one of ordinary
skill in the art could construct a connector having the claimed
"substantial increase" in inductances without undue
experimentation, and the enablement requirement of § 112, first
paragraph, is not satisfied.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-
type double patenting over claim 3 of commonly-assigned parent
Patent No. 5,489,220. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892, 225 USPQ
645, 648-49 (Fed. Cir. 1985). While the electrical connector
recited in claim 3 of the patent is recited more narrowly than in
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007