Appeal No. 2000-0967
Application 08/932,545
drawings wherein in Figures 1 and 3, the lines forming the
pattern on the ground plane appear slightly irregular. Although
appellants argue that this irregularity is nothing more than an
expected deviation from perfection in manufacturing the copper
mesh of Cox and is not a random geometric pattern as claimed, the
examiner insists that the irregular pattern shown in Figures 1
and 3 of Cox is a substantially random geometric pattern. Even
if the examiner is correct that the ground plane conductor 30 of
Cox could be substituted for the grounding grid of the admitted
prior art, a position which appellants dispute, we agree with
appellants that the slightly irregular pattern shown in Cox’s
figures cannot be interpreted by itself to be a substantially
random geometric pattern. In our view, the artisan would not
have interpreted the pattern in Cox as being random nor would the
artisan have drawn any inferences regarding the value of a
substantially random geometric pattern.
In summary, the examiner’s primary finding that the
pattern shown in cox is a substantially random geometric pattern
is not supported by this record. We also agree with appellants
that the examiner has not properly responded to the question of
why the irregularities of the Cox mesh would appear in a
grounding grid formed on a printed circuitry member as disclosed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007