Appeal No. 2006-2930
Application No. 10/299,198
formed between the standoffs in Sinclair, and such a recess would inherently
allow cooling air to circulate [answer, pages 4 and 5].
Appellant also argues that Sinclair’s standoffs will raise the housing of
base 14 and consequently space the housing from the circuit board. According
to appellant, such spacing will cause the electrical connector and circuit board to
be out of alignment, thus requiring extensive modifications [brief, pages 10-12].
Appellant emphasizes that the recess of the claimed invention, however, is
defined in the supporting portion. Therefore, the recess of the claimed invention
will not change the distance between the base and the circuit board [id.]. The
examiner responds that providing a recess in APA in the manner suggested by
Sinclair would not result in alignment problems since Sinclair disposes standoffs
at each corner thus leveling the connector on the circuit board [answer, pages 5
and 6].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7 and 10.
At the outset, we note that it is undisputed that the only difference between APA
and the claimed invention is the existence of a recess in the bottom face of the
supporting portion. Accordingly, the sole issue before us is whether it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to add a
recess to the supporting portion of APA in light of the teachings of Sinclair. We
agree with the examiner that, in view of Sinclair, the skilled artisan would have
been motivated to provide such a recess in the supporting portion of the APA
device.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007