Appeal No. 2005-0340 6
Application No. 10/098,105
regarding claim 16 above, while Sands teaches a method of forming a mounting
structure including the steps of forming projections (112) on one of the circuit board and
a support structure, and creating openings (134) on the remaining one of the circuit
board and support structure, wherein the projections are interlockable with the openings
via a multidirectional motion of the circuit board, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not perceive the method disclosed in Sands as providing a “tool-free
mounting structure” since securement of the access panel (119) that locks the circuit
board into its retained position requires the use of either screws or bolts (col. 6, lines 44-
47) which an artisan would readily understand requires tools to properly secure in place.
Moreover, regarding the “latchable wall section,” we again conclude that it is
inconsistent with appellants’ specification and unreasonable for the examiner to equate
the screw/bolt secured panel (119) of Sands with the “latchable wall section” set forth in
claim 23 on appeal.
For those reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 23, or claims 25, 26 and 28 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sands.
With respect to the rejection of claims 16 through 18, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sands, the examiner’s position is that it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007