Appeal No. 97-4158
Application No. 08/515,218
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Bruder
device with a resilient projection extending over the
component, absent the hindsight accorded one who first
reviewed the appellant’s disclosure. There are several
reasons for arriving at this conclusion. First, the problem
addressed by the appellant has not been recognized by any of
the applied prior art references, much less Bruder and Bright,
which are the only ones that disclose ZIF sockets. Therefore,
no suggestion to modify Bruder in the manner proposed by the
examiner is found in this consideration. Second, there is no
other suggestion, explicit or implicit, in any of the applied
references which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in
the art to add a second component retention system to the
Bruder device. Bruder discloses a test fixture, and there
would seem to be no reason why the artisan would be concerned
about components becoming detached because of being subjected
to rough treatment, as would be the case in a portable
computer, for example, and so the “binding” system would be
sufficient to secure the component being tested. Finally, the
references do not disclose or teach operating two different
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007