Ex Parte OBERMAIER - Page 4



                Appeal No. 2005-0324                                                                           
                Application No. 09/390,824                                                                     


                      ground of rejection on the basis of that claim alone unless a                            
                      statement is included that the claims of the group do not stand or                       
                      fall together and, in the argument under paragraph (c) (8) of this                       
                      section, appellant explains why the claims of the group are believed                     
                      to be separately patentable.  Merely pointing out differences in what                    
                      the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are                             
                      separately patentable.                                                                   
                      Accordingly, for the rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will group                
                all the claims together and treat claim 1 as the representative claim.                         
                                      Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                        
                      Appellant argues, on page 5 of the brief, that “[t]he Examiner fails to                  
                identify any explicit suggestion to combine the references.  Instead, the Examiner             
                asserts that it would have been obvious to combine the features of the disclosed               
                devices, ‘to provide an external connection to the card.’”  Further, the appellant             
                argues that:                                                                                   
                             The central problem addressed by Moss is providing a device that                  
                      protects and aligns an expansion card during insertion and removal of the                
                      card from a live chassis.  The Moss device is configured to surround and                 
                      protect the card rather than allow any external access to the card.  Moss                
                      fails to provide any suggestion to combine the references.                               
                             Cranston III, et al. pertains only to a card cage that contains both a            
                      planar circuit board that includes a CPU (i.e. a motherboard), and various               
                      accessory boards that plug into the motherboard.  The motherboard is the                 
                      heart of the computer system, containing devices essential to the                        
                      operation of the computer.  The Cranston III, et al. device is not a card                
                      carrier assembly, but rather an insertable computer.  Cranston III et al.                
                      fails to provide any suggestion to combine the references.  (emphasis                    
                      original, citations omitted).                                                            

                Further, on page 3 of the reply brief, appellant argues:                                       
                             More particularly, the Moss device is intended to create a                        
                      connection to a live motherboard, whereas the Cranston III et al. device is              

                                                      -4-                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007