Appeal No. 2006-1437
Application No. 10/782,161
Brief (filed Sep. 19, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 31, 2005) for appellant’s
position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Based on appellant’s arguments in the briefs, we will decide the appeal on the
basis of claim 8. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Instant claim 8 requires moving a load plate from a closed position that
compresses the processor into the socket to an open position. An extraction device is
activated by movement of the load plate from the closed position to the open position.
Further, the processor is extracted from the socket with the activated extraction device.
Appellant submits that carrier 62 (e.g., Fig. 7) of Ikeya cannot meet the terms of
the claimed “load plate.” According to appellant, it is the cover, rather than the carrier,
that compresses the processor. (Brief at 3.)
The statement of the rejection, however, submits that Ikeya discloses a
motherboard 70, a socket frame 10, a socket 42, a processor 60, and a processor
extraction device in the form of an adhesive and a plurality of springs 44. With this
combination of elements, the rejection refers to “load plate 12.” (Final Rejection at 2-3;
Answer at 3-4.)
Ikeya describes, in view of the written description at columns 3 through 7,
apparatus including a cover 12 (Fig. 1) that may be closed and latched (latch 24; Fig. 2)
over external base 10. Figure 1 shows insulating film 32 that, as shown in Figure 3, is
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007