Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
Appellant's invention, because the only shielding problem mentioned by
Mazura is in connection with the longitudinal gaps between modules.
The rejection of claims 1, 13, 16, 17, and 22 is affirmed. It is noted
that claims 16 and 17 were rejected for obviousness, but are grouped by
Appellant to stand or fall together with claim 1.
Group II - claim 23
Appellant argues that Mazura does not disclose "said plurality of
printed circuit board modules creates a seal with said chassis," as recited in
claim 23 (Br. 8; Br. 22). We disagree for the reasons stated in connection
with the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 23 is affirmed.
Group III - claim 24
Appellant argues that Mazura does not disclose "each PCB module is
enclosed" and "said plurality of printed circuit board modules creates a seal
with said chassis," as recited in claim 24 (Br. 8; Br. 22). We disagree for the
reasons stated in connection with the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of
claim 24 is affirmed.
Obviousness
Claims 2-5, 19, and 20 -- Mazura and Harris
Group IV - claim 2
The Examiner finds that Mazura shows a screw attaching the faceplate
to the chassis at one end, but does not show a second screw attached to the
other end (August 28, 2002, Rejection 3-4). The Examiner finds that Harris
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013