Appeal No. 97-4158
Application No. 08/515,218
The problem to which the appellant has directed his
inventive efforts is applying a second component retaining
force to ZIF sockets to minimize the probability of component
movement or detachment in the face of the use of larger
components, such as those containing heat sinks
(specification, page 3). The appellant solves the problem by
incorporating into the mechanism which operates the first
retaining system, a second system which applies a resilient
force to the upper surface of the component to urge it toward
the upper surface of the body upon which it is mounted.
Claim 41 is directed to a zero insertion force (ZIF)
socket comprising four components. Bruder discloses a ZIF
socket comprising the claimed body, binding member and first
arm member, which operate together in the same manner as the
appellant’s invention to retain the component assembly
installed thereon in place by engaging the component pins.
What Bruder does not teach, however, is the second retention
means, that is, the “first projection extending generally
perpendicularly from the first arm member and extending over a
portion of the component assembly” to provide a retention
force to “resiliently urge the component assembly toward the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007