Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
problem with the connector housing of the Admitted Prior Art. Appellants’
Specification admits recognition of two such needs, weight reduction and cost
reduction (Specification 2:23 to 3:3). In any case, we would have assumed that
these were generally recognized objectives even in the absence of an admission.
Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651; Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161,
82 USPQ2d at 1691.
The question remains whether a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
field of endeavor, attempting to address either or both of these needs, would
reasonably have expected to find a solution in the art area that includes Pyzik. We
find that this question must be answered in the affirmative. An artisan seeking to
reduce the weight and/or cost of the Admitted Prior Art would have focused on
connector housing 3, which is formed from aluminum and appears to be largest and
heaviest component of the shield connector. Presumably, the aluminum housing in
the Admitted Prior Art is already as thin as it can be made and still provide
sufficient shielding and mechanical strength. The artisan therefore would have
looked for a substitute material that can be used to make a connector housing that
(1) is lighter in weight than the aluminum connector housing of the Admitted Prior
Art, (2) provides a sufficient amount of shielding either in unplated form or after
being plated with layers of conductive metal, such as the copper and tin coatings
applied to the connector housing of the Admitted Prior Art, and (3) provides
sufficient mechanical strength. While the search for a suitable material clearly
would have included electrically conductive housings for various types of
electrical and magnetic devices, the search would not have been limited to
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013