Appeal No. 2000-0967
Application 08/932,545
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner notes that the admitted prior art teaches the claimed
invention except for the grounding grid having a substantially
random geometric pattern. The examiner cites Cox as teaching a
grounding grid of this type. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to replace the grounding grid of
the admitted prior art with the grounding grid of Cox because
they are equivalent grounding means [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Cox is not directed to
a flexible printed circuit member, that Cox does not teach or
suggest that the ground plane conductor should have a random
geometric pattern, that the grounding grid mesh of Cox cannot be
used in the flexible printed circuitry member of the admitted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007