Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
regard to the other independent claim, claim 11, the Examiner
states on page 5 of the final rejection that the Examiner is
relying on the same reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
On pages 14 through 16 of the brief, Appellants argue that
there is no reason to modify the front shield of Dixon with the
teaching of Kawai. Appellants point out on page 16 of the appeal
brief that the primary purpose for the forward external shield
recited in representative claims 1 and 11 is to provide structure
to prevent electrostatic discharge (ESD) from damaging the
connector and its associated circuitry. Appellants argue on page
2 of the reply brief that one of the problems that Dixon sought
to solve was to prevent the EMI shield to act as an antenna.
Appellants point to column 3, lines 33-44. Appellants argue that
by suggesting that the external forward shield of Kawai can
simply be added to the internal shield of Dixon, the Examiner is
adding additional structure at the external forward face of the
Dixon connector that would act as an antenna to radiate, rather
than suppress, EMI. Appellants argue that the modification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007