Appeal No. 2006-0027 4
Application No. 10/287,889
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
August 22, 2005 and November 25, 2005) and the final rejection
and answer (mailed October 20, 2004 and September 28, 2005) for
the respective positions of the appellants and examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13-18, 20, 21, 23, 44-46, 48-
51 and 53-61 as being anticipated by Wong
Wong discloses a tool 10 used with a card cage 50 for inserting and removing
printed circuit boards 55. The tool 10 comprises a guide 20 fixed to the card cage, a
slider 30 mounted on the guide for movement therealong, a rotating arm 40 pivotally
connected to the slider for selective engagement with a printed circuit board, and a
spring 49 disposed between the arm and the slider for biasing the arm to a vertical
position when not in use. The arm includes an offset end 71 configured to cooperate
1 In the final rejection, claims 1, 11, 17, 49 and 58 also stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Upon
further consideration, the examiner has withdrawn this rejection (see page 3
in the answer).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007