Ex Parte Bryant - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2006-1437                                                                              
            Application No. 10/782,161                                                                        

                                               BACKGROUND                                                     
                   The invention relates to a system and method for removing a processor from a               
            socket in which the processor has been compressed.  Representative claim 8 is                     
            reproduced below.                                                                                 
                   8. A method for extracting a processor from a socket, the method                           
                   comprising:                                                                                
                         moving a load plate from a closed position that compresses the processor             
                   into the socket to an open position;                                                       
                         activating an extraction device by movement of the load plate from the               
                   closed position to the open position; and                                                  
                         extracting the processor from the socket with the activated extraction               
                   device.                                                                                    
                   The examiner relies on the following references:                                           
            Ikeya           5,688,128   Nov. 18, 1997                                                         
            McHugh et al. (McHugh)  US 6,726,500 B1   Apr.  27, 2004                                          
                                                                       (filed Apr.  17, 2003)                 
                   Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated           
            by Ikeya.                                                                                         
                   Claims 1-4 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable             
            over McHugh and Ikeya.                                                                            
                   We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 19, 2005) and the Examiner’s                   
            Answer (mailed Sep. 29, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the               



                                                     -2-                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007