Appeal No. 2001-1771 8
Application No. 09/205,782
spacing between filaments) that would render it a good absorber of EMI, which is the very
essence of the Adkins invention.4
We have also considered the statement made by appellants on page 9, lines 4-7, of
the Amendment filed December 6, 1999 (Paper No. 9) that the examiner has quoted on
page 9 of the answer. Even when considered in a light most favorable to the examiner,
we find no admission against interest there that would establish the obviousness of the
subject matter of the appealed claims.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22,
23, 26 and 28-35 as being unpatentable over Adkins in view of AAPA.
4Although not officially part of the evidentiary basis of the rejection before us in
this appeal, we have also reviewed the Hogen publication referred to by both the
examiner in the answer and appellants in the briefs and find nothing therein that makes
up for this fundamental deficiency in the applied prior art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007