Appeal No. 2005-0324
Application No. 09/390,824
cards which interface with external components require an external connector.
We note that figures 4, 6, 7, and 8 depict an aperture on the handle item 38 side
of the card carrier. While, we do not find that the aperture teaches that there is
an external connection, we consider that the aperture, in combination with the
expansion circuit board of Cranston, as discussed infra, permits the external
connection to the printed circuit board.
We find that Moss’s statement “Additional means (not shown) may be
used to secure the expansion card 28a in carrier 46 if deemed necessary”
(column 3, lines 14-16) provides evidence that Moss anticipates that additional
structure not depicted or described is associated with the card to card carrier
connection.1
We concur with appellant’s assessment that Cranston teaches a computer
with a card cage. We find that Cranston teaches that the circuit boards are
vertically inserted into a board within the card cage. See Cranston Figure 1 and
column, 4 lines 51-52. We concur with the examiner’s finding that circuit board,
item 71, has an external connector, item 73, depicted in figure 4 as having a flat
surface perpendicular to both the vertical circuit board and the riser circuit board,
item 61. See Cranston, column 4, lines 58-63. We find that Cranston’s external
1 We note that Moss’s expression of the desirability of using additional means to secure the card
and appellant’s discussion of a typical installation of PCI cards, on page 2 of the specification,
that “[n]ormally the card is held in place by the system connector, and by a screw that secures
the bulkhead to the chassis” may also render the claim unpatentable. However, since we concur
with the examiner’s rejection, we do not enter a new grounds of rejection, as it would be
cumulative to the examiner’s rejection.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007