Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
conductivity and provide more positive shielding (id. at 7:12-17). Appellant’s
housing connector is further described as having “sufficient strength” (id. at 7:15).
The lightweight metal 51 can be aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or a
magnesium alloy (id. at 12:14-15). The hollow ceramics grains 53 can be
“[m]ullite balloons, alumina balloons, carbon balloons, SiO2 balloons, or the like”
(id. at 12:16-18). Appellants explain that “[i]n view of the lightweight design of
the connector housing 49 and its practical strength enough [sic – being enough?] to
perform its function, it has been confirmed through experiments that the proper
content of the hollow ceramics grains is about 30 to about 60 vol. %” (id. at 13:8-
11).
APPELLANTS’ EVIDENCE APPENDIX
The Brief is accompanied by an Evidence Appendix consisting of five
figures described as “comparing the properties of the composite material of the
embodiment described in the specification with the properties of an aluminum
alloy" (Br. 10). The Brief states that these figures were submitted with the
Response filed August 23, 2004 (Br. 10.). The captions to the figures indicate that
the composite has (a) a “specific gravity” (sic -- density) 49% lighter than that of
the aluminum alloy, (b) a coefficient of linear expansion 42% that is lower than
that of the aluminum alloy, (c) an oscillation loss that is 4860% higher than that of
the aluminum alloy (indicating a higher vibration damping effect), (d) the same
shielding effects as the aluminum alloy, and (e) a thermal conductivity that is 20%
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013