Appeal No. 2003-1485
Application No. 09/885,086
Figures 1 and 6, as the two edges meeting but not overlapping,
for shields 36 and 36A in Figures 4 and 5, and as no seam at all,
for shield 18 in Figure 1. Thus, the embodiment of Figures 1 and
6 includes an overlap along the longitudinal length of the
individual shield.
Appellant further argues (Brief, page 6) that Deitz and
Dembiak do not have the required motivation or suggestion "to
allow an artesian [sic] to extrapolate from Dembiak's bonded
overall shield into Deitz' individual shield." Yet, according
to appellant (Brief, page 5), "even if Dembiak provided teaching
and motivation to bond the individual shields of Deitz, one
relying on Dembiak and Deitz, would not use an aluminum layer
between .0003 and .001 inches." In particular, appellant
explains (Brief, page 6) that Dembiak teaches a thickness of .008
inches for an overall moisture barrier, whereas Deitz uses a thin
individual shield for controlling electricals (rather than water
prevention). Appellant concludes (Brief, pages 6-7) that to use
Dembiak's teaching of bonding an overlapping edge, the skilled
artisan would use aluminum with a thickness of .008 inches for
the overall shield and would bond an overlapping edge thereof to
prevent water penetration rather than bond an overlapping edge of
the individual shield.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007