Appeal No. 2005-0340 5
Application No. 10/098,105
Moreover, consistent with appellants’ many indications in the specification that
the invention provides for the “screwless” installation and removal of a circuit board on
and from a support structure in an electronic device such as a computer, we are of the
view that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention would not
have equated the screw/bolt secured panel (119) of Sands with the “latchable panel” set
forth in claim 16 on appeal. In that regard, we share appellants’ position that by
equating “latchable” with a bolt or screw, the examiner has provided a definition or
interpretation which is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning understood by those of
ordinary skill in the art and which has neither a basis in common usage by an artisan
nor a basis in the present application.
Thus, for the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 16, or claims 17, 18 and 21 which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sands.
Concerning independent claim 23 and claims 25, 26 and 28 which depend
therefrom, we note that claim 23 sets forth a method of forming a “tool-free mounting
structure for a circuit board” and includes the step of “providing a latchable wall section
of the support structure adjacent an edge of the circuit board in a blocking position
relative to at least one direction of the multi-directional motion.” Similar to our position
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007