Appeal No. 2006-2930
Application No. 10/299,198
and 62, such standoffs merely constitute those portions of the base member 14
that are not recessed. That is, forming notch-shaped recesses in the base
member of Sinclair inherently produces “standoffs” on either side of the notch.
Indeed, even in the present application, a notch-shaped recess 211 is shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. Thus, even the recess disclosed in the present application
inherently produces “standoffs” on either side of the recess (i.e., areas on the
bottom face of the supporting portion adjacent the recess).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the APA/Sinclair combination.
Sinclair essentially discloses equally-spaced notch-shaped recesses around the
periphery of a “supporting portion” (i.e., base member 14). Significantly, the base
member in Sinclair -- like the bottom face of the supporting portion of APA --
directly contacts the circuit board except for the areas that are recessed. As we
indicated previously, such recesses would inherently promote air or gas
circulation therein. In light of this teaching, we see no reason why the skilled
artisan would not provide at least one notch-shaped recess in the bottom face of
the supporting portion of APA to promote air or gas circulation therein. In our
view, forming such a notch-shaped recess in the supporting member of APA
would hardly result in the tilted, misaligned structure characterized on page 12 of
appellant’s brief.
For the above reasons, we find that the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 7 and 10 is reasonable based on APA and Sinclair.
Accordingly, the rejection will be sustained. Since appellant has not separately
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007