Appeal No. 1996-3194
Application 08/218,802
DeBalko is not aligned with the semiconductor components used
in our interpretation of claim 6 (components 32, 33, 35, 36
and 38). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
7.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, we agree
with the conclusion reached by the examiner. Claim 8 modifies
claim 1 by reciting that the force applying means is
deformable. The force applying means of DeBalko (clamp 44)
appears to be deformable. Claim 9 modifies claim 1 by
reciting that the first and second case parts snap together in
a friction fit. Appellants argue that the assembly in DeBalko
is an interference arrangement rather than a friction fit
[brief, page 10]. We fail to see how the phrase “friction
fit” distinguishes over the fit in DeBalko. We are of the
view that the snap arrangement of DeBalko represents a
friction fit.
In conclusion, the examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1-9 is sustained with respect to claims 1, 6, 8 and
9, but is not sustained with respect to claims 2-5 and 7.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-9
is affirmed-in-part.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007