Appeal No. 2001-0017
Application No. 09/040,479
Initially, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’
contention that, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the
Shimizu reference has no structure which could reasonably be
interpreted as corresponding to the claimed impedance control
pins. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Shimizu coincides
with that of Appellants, i.e., the impedance control structure in
Shimizu is a grounding plate, not a pin as claimed. In our view,
no reasonable interpretation of the structure of such a grounding
plate would correspond to a pin that is “similarly sized and
shaped” to that of the plug signal pin as set forth in each of
the independent claims 1, 10, 15, and 22.
We also agree with Appellants that there is no evidence that
the ground contact pins 8 in Andrews ‘340, while at least
superficially illustrated as being of similar size and shape to
signal pins 6, are in fact impedance control pins. As argued by
Appellants (Brief, page 15), all of the pins in Andrews ‘340, the
ground contact pins 8, as well as the signal pins 5, are
intentionally isolated from the other pins by large metallic
shields precluding any of the pins from impacting the impedance
of neighboring pins. On the record before us, we are constrained
to agree with Appellants since the Examiner has not responded to
this argument from Appellants.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007