Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
materials. Specifically, the artisan would have recognized that using such a
composite instead of pure aluminum would permit weight reduction to be achieved
by (a) using a composite that has a density (e.g., 2.58 g/cc) less than that of
aluminum (2.7 g/cc), or (b) reducing the thickness of the housing wall, (c) using
both techniques.
The Examiner was therefore correct to hold that the subject matter recited in
claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious over the admitted prior art in view of
Pyzik.
Although Appellants cite their Evidence Appendix as support for the
assertion that “[t]he present invention provides advantages over the prior art shield
connector in weight, thermal expansion, damping effect, and thermal conductivity”
(Br. 4 & n.3), they do not characterize these advantages as being unexpected or as
sufficient to rebut the prima facie case for obviousness.
The rejection is therefore affirmed with respect to claim 1 and also with
respect to dependent claims 3-5, which are not separately argued. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013