Appeal No. 2001-0176 Page 3
Application No. 08/958,595
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner with
respect to the rejections before us, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellant’s viewpoint since the examiner has
failed to carry the burden of establishing that the herein
claimed subject matter is obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 on this record. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejections.
At the outset, we note that all of the claims on appeal
require a shaped EMI shield comprising a 1-50 micron thick
coating of conductive metal vapor deposited on a thin-walled
thermoformable polymeric material. In applying Koskenmaki to the
claimed subject matter, the examiner (answer, page 4) refers to
column 1, lines 52-60 of that reference for a teaching of a
conductive metal vapor coating and column 1, lines 42-50 and
column 5, lines 54-58 for a teaching of a thermoformable
polymeric material. However, the examiner simply does not
explain how the prior art vapor deposition coatings referred to
in column 1 of Koskenmaki relate to the thermoformable polymeric
material discussed in the background section of Koskenmaki or the
thermoformable polymeric material substrate on which a mat of
metal strands are embedded. In this regard, the examiner has not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007