Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
THE ISSUES2
1. Is Pyzik analogous prior art? Issues 2 and 3 are contingent on answering
this question in the affirmative.
2. Did motivation exist to replace the aluminum material of the connector
housing of the Admitted Prior Art with Pyzik’s ceramic-metal composite material,
thereby satisfying claim 1?
3. Would the artisan have concluded that the volume content of the hollow
ceramics grains relative to the total volume of the connector housing can have a
value in the range of 30 to 60 volume percent, as recited in claim 2?
APPELLANTS’ DISCLOSURE
Appellants’ invention is an improvement of the prior-art shield connector 1
shown in Appellants’ Figure 3 (“Admitted Prior Art”). This shield connector
includes a conductive connector housing 3 that is designed to make electrical
contact with metal braid 37C of shielded wire 37 though an intermediate metal
short-circuiting member 5 (Specification 2:20-3:1). The connector housing 3
includes a tubular body 17 and a bracket portion 15 that permits a bolt to be used to
mount the connector housing on the metal casing of a piece of equipment (not
2 The issues as stated herein represent the contentions of Appellants, who
have the burden on appeal to the Board to point out any errors in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [for
obviousness] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013