Appeal No. 2000-2139
Application No. 08/938,704
art, fig.5 of the application because the springs
of the prior art [APA], fig.5 take less space on the
printed circuit board and also provide an elastic
pressure to the first and second shield cases. This
would have been obvious since the elastic pressure
of the spring member not only ensures good ground
contact of the first and second shield cases, but
also acts as shock absorbers [sic] in cases where
the apparatus is subjected to vibration. [answer,
page 5]
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants’ brief and reply brief, and
in the
examiner’s answer, we consider that the rejection is not well
taken. While we agree with the examiner’s conclusion [a],
that it would have been obvious in view of Mendolia to
interpose an elastic member between the first shield 211 and3
the casing 201 of Beutler in order to urge the shield more
tightly into engagement with the circuit board 205, we do not
agree with conclusion [b], that it would have been obvious to
replace Beutler’s spring channels 207, 209 with the spring
members 7 of the APA. The problem with the latter conclusion
is that the spring fingers which make up Beutler’s spring
The elastic member of Mendolia could not be used with Beutler’s second3
shield 203, since that shield is integral with the casing.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007