Appeal No. 2005-0340 10
Application No. 10/098,105
774 F.2d 1132, 1138, 227 USPQ 543, 547 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Since the teachings and suggestions found in Sands and Ho would not have
made the subject matter as a whole of independent claims 16, 23, 32 and 41 on appeal
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention, we must
refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those claims, and of dependent claims 17,
18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37 through 40, 43 and 45 through 47 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Concerning the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 through 31 and 41 through 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crowley in view of Sands, we
note that Crowley discloses a standoff for mounting two or more printed circuit boards to
a chassis in which one keyhole cut printed circuit board may be slidably mounted on the
keyhole mount portion (30, 230) of the standoff and a second printed circuit board may
be mounted to the top portion of the standoff spaced away from the first printed circuit
board. However, there is no disclosure or showing in Crowley of exactly what
constitutes the support structure or chassis of the electronic instruments mentioned
therein. The examiner has found that Crowley lacks only a latchable panel for
releasably preventing unlocking movement of the circuit board relative to the support
structure and concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007