Appeal 2006-2970
Application 09/224,340
modules. This interpretation is supported by Harris which discusses "slots"
even though there is no vertical strips between modules (col. 3, ll. 53-54).
Appellant first argues that Mazura does not disclose that "each PCB
module includes a faceplate and a connector assembly disposed opposite
said faceplate such that each PCB module is enclosed," as recited in claim 1
(Br. 7; Br. 22). It is argued that Mazura has a common rear wall plate for all
plug-in modules, so that the plug-in modules can communicate with each
other, whereas, it is argued, claim 1 requires that "each PCB module has a
faceplate and a connector assembly, not one common assembly" (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that each PCB module in Mazura has a
faceplate and a connector (not shown) for inserting into the component
carrier (Answer 8).
Appellant's arguments are not clear. To the extent Appellant is
relying on the limitation that "each PCB module is enclosed," it is not clear
what is meant by "enclosed." The limitation "such that each PCB module is
enclosed" (emphasis added) in claim 1 implies that the module is enclosed as
a result of a connector assembly being disposed opposite a faceplate. No
other enclosing structure is recited other than, implicitly, the chassis.
Claim 24 merely recites that "each PCB module is enclosed," without any
description of what structure encloses it. Apparently, "each PCB module is
enclosed" can be interpreted to mean that it is enclosed when it is in the
chassis because otherwise it seems that the limitation is indefinite.
As to Appellant's argument that claim 1 requires that "each PCB
module has a faceplate and a connector assembly, not one common
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013