Appeal No. 2000-0967
Application 08/932,545
prior art, and that the admitted prior art and Cox do not teach
or suggest the problem solved by the claimed grounding grid
[brief].
The examiner responds that even though there is no
disclosure in Cox regarding the ground plane having a random
geometric pattern, this fact is apparent from the drawings. The
examiner also notes that appellants have not provided any reason
why the grounding grid of Cox cannot be used in a flexible
circuitry member. The examiner also responds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to substitute the grounding grid of
Cox for the equivalent grounding grid of the admitted prior art
since they are functional equivalents [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants respond that the grounding grid of Cox does
not have a substantially random geometric pattern as claimed, and
appellants dispute the various findings made by the examiner
[reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellants. Most
importantly, we find that Cox does not teach or suggest that the
ground plane conductor 30 should have a substantially random
geometric pattern. As admitted by appellants and the examiner,
there is no mention in the disclosure of Cox of this particular
property. The examiner’s finding is based entirely on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007