Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 670 n.5, 213 USPQ 713, 715 n.5 (CCPA 1982)).
However, because the artisan’s reason for consulting Class 428 would have been to
find a material having properties that would permit it to be used as an electrically
conductive housing, the fact that Pyzik’s ceramic-metal composite material is used
to make a disk substrate rather than a housing would not have dissuaded the artisan
from considering its suitability for making an electrically conductive housing.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Pyzik is analogous prior art.
ISSUE 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?
Appellants do not deny that making the connector housing of the Admitted
Prior Art with Pyzik’s Al-B-C ceramic-metal composite material instead of pure
aluminum will result in a shielding connector that satisfies claim 1. That is,
Appellants do not deny that Pyzik’s disclosed Al—B—C composite includes the
claimed “metal composite comprising lightweight metal and hollow ceramics
grains.”
Because Pyzik’s decision to replace aluminum hard disk substrates with
substrates made of ceramic-metal composite material is primarily based on a
property (namely, specific stiffness) that is of no concern to the designer of shield
connectors, Appellant’s invention cannot be fairly characterized as involving the
simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a
known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement. KSR, 127 S.
Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. However, we agree with the Examiner that
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013