Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
flow and the openings of 11.75 mm by 18.7 mm is not a hole less than about
2.3 mm (0.09 inches) (Br. 17).
The Examiner responds that it would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to make the holes as small a diameter as possible to reduce the
amount of space (Answer 7).
McCarthy discloses that a Faraday shield minimizes the leakage of
electromagnetic interference (EMI) and radio frequency interference (RFI),
and that the size of the holes should be selected to balance the requirements
of a Faraday shield and air flow for cooling (abstract). These are the same
reasons Appellant has selected the particular hole diameter; see
Specification 8, ll. 16-19, and claims 16 and 17. The size of the holes
depends on the frequencies involved; the higher the frequency, the shorter
the wavelength, and the smaller should be the diameter of the holes to
provide shielding (not to reduce space as stated by the Examiner). We find
that one of ordinary skill in the art of designing EMI/RFI cabinets for the
purpose of Appellant's invention would have been motivated to select 0.09
inches in diameter based on routine design considerations of the frequencies
intended to be shielded by the cabinet. The rejection of claim 18 is affirmed.
Claims 12 and 21 -- Mazura, Martin, and McKenzie
Group XV and Group XVI - claims 12 and 21
The Examiner finds that the references applied to claims 2 and 6 do
not teach a flexible handle mounted on the faceplate, but that a flexible
handle is shown in McKenzie, and concludes that it would have been
- 18 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013