Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
were not needed. The vertical surface would be located above the seating
location as shown by Figure 17. The teaching-suggestion-motivation for the
modification is found in the express teachings of Brahmbhatt.
It is noted that Figures 14 and 15 show the inclined surface raised
above the horizontal bottom surface of the tray. As discussed in the new
anticipation ground of rejection, the claimed "bottom surface" may be
considered to extend up to the lower edge of the inclined surface. In
addition, however, it would have been obvious to extend the inclined surface
in Figures 14 and 15 down to the horizontal bottom surface in view of the
ridge 69.1 in Figure 7. The teaching-suggestion- motivation is found in the
express teachings of Brahmbhatt.
Brahmbhatt, as modified, teaches claims 2 and 5-11.
Brahmbhatt and Murphy - claims 3 and 4
Brahmbhatt discloses storage pockets which are formed by discrete
component engagement means 76 (e.g., Fig. 12). The differences between
Brahmbhatt and the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 are that Brahmbhatt
does not disclose that the "first storage portions" are defined by pairs of
intersecting ridges, as recited in claim 3, or that each ridge "defining said
first storage portions has a wall surface for serving as said first wall surface,"
as recited in claim 4.
Murphy is directed to a tray for semiconductor integrated circuit
devices and, thus, is within the inventors' field of endeavor and within the
scope of the prior art. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442,
- 50 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013