Appeal No. 2006-2930
Application No. 10/299,198
783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531
F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 7 and 10, the examiner's rejection
essentially finds that APA (i.e., Figs. 5-7 of the present application) teaches every
claimed feature except for at least one recess defined in a bottom face of the at
least one supporting portion. The examiner cites Sinclair as disclosing a test
socket comprising corner standoffs that form a recess therebetween. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the structure of APA by using corner
standoffs and the recess formed thereby to allow cooling air to circulate to the
heat-fusible elements [answer, pages 3 and 4].
Appellant argues that no recess is defined in Sinclair’s connector, but
rather the reference discloses a plurality of standoffs that raise the bottom
surface of the base [brief, page 9]. Appellant further argues that since Sinclair
does not teach a recess for allowing cooling air to circulate, the reference
therefore fails to provide the motivation to define a recess for such a purpose
[brief, page 10]. The examiner responds that the space or recess is inherently
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007