Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (the reference must either be in the
field of the applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was concerned); Stratoflex, Inc.
v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535, 218 USPQ 871, 876 (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("The scope of the prior art has been defined as that 'reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved'.").
Murphy discloses a pocket storage area 420 formed by transverse
beams 412, 413, 416, and 417. A pocket has four corner supports 422, each
with an upstanding wall section 430 with first and second positioning fingers
431 and 432 having inner vertical surfaces 433 and 434 adapted to be
proximate an edge of the integrated circuit package 401. The tops of the
fingers have chamfered surfaces 437 and 438. The package 401 is supported
on its bottom surface by platforms 444 on the top of pedestals 440, 441, 442,
and 443, and by upstanding ribs 450 and 451. As the integrated circuit
package 401 is loaded into a pocket storage area, the chamfered edges 431
and 432 of the fingers and the finger surfaces 433 and 434 align the package
401 with the pocket. See Figs. 4 and 5; col. 5, l. 1 to col. 6, l. 17.
Murphy does not expressly teach why transverse beams (intersecting
ridges or ribs) are used to define the pocket storage areas. It is not required
that the prior art teach why something was done to establish motivation, but
only that it has been done, because patents often leave out descriptions of
things that are well known. See Paperless Accounting, Inc. v. Bay Area
Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659, 664, 231 USPQ 649, 652 (Fed. Cir.
- 51 -
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013