Appeal No. 2001-1771 6
Application No. 09/205,782
modification of Adkins intertwined material to comprises [sic] fused material
filaments would have been obvious.
The initial burden is on the examiner to present evidence from which is can be
concluded that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1444, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present case, it is our view
that the examiner has not met this initial burden. Our reasons follow.
Based upon the examiner’s application of the cited prior art against the appealed
claims, the burden is on the examiner to establish that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to utilize a material of the type
discussed by appellants on page 9 of the specification as the mat material of Adkins.
While we appreciate that in Adkins the mat 404 is porous so that cooling air passing
through conduit 403 can flow to the electronic components 407 on the circuit board 406,
this is not the primary function of the mat material. The main objective of Adkins, as noted
above, is to provide shielding that will absorb electromagnetic interference of the type
encountered in Adkins’ application (e.g., high speed computer applications). As set forth
in Adkins, the absorptive mat material
may comprise material such as steel wool, carbon-impregnated rubber,
ferrite in a plastic stranded carrier, a combination of these or other similar
lossy[3] materials with the spacing between the members of the mat made
3The term “lossy” may mean “highly dissipative of electrical energy.” Webster’s
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007