Appeal No. 2004-1015
Application No. 09/619,869
such that alignment of the heat sink with respect to the
microprocessor chip is not necessary as recited in claim 9. Even
as so modified in view of Gonsalves, however, Jones still falls
short of meeting the particular disassembling and reassembling
steps set forth in claim 14.
In light of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of Gonsalves. We also shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 2 through 8 and 10 through 13 as being unpatentable over
Jones in view of Gonsalves since the appellant has not challenged
such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these
claims to stand or fall with parent claims 1 and 9 (see In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)). We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims
15, 16 and 18 through 20, as being unpatentable over Jones in
view of Gonsalves.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 16
and 18 through 20 is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 13
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007