Appeal 2006-3357
Application 10/310,311
the Appeal Brief (filed March 25, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed August 29,
2005).
THE ISSUES
Appellants have argued the patentability of claims 1-20 together as a
single group. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we
focus our attention on claim 1, with claims 2-20 standing or falling
therewith. The Examiner offers alternative explanations as to why the
subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable over Bellomo (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner’s first position (Answer 4) is that the module 36
together with the memory modules 38 mounted thereon correspond to the “at
least one semiconductor device” referred to in claim 1 and that, in essence,
Bellomo’s connector portion 32 and module latching and protection
mechanism 40 comprise “at least one interconnection receptacle associated
with the carrier substrate for receiving at least an edge portion of the at least
one semiconductor device” and “a mounting element,” respectively, of a
system for securing at least one semiconductor device (the module 36 with
memory modules 38 thereon) in nonparallel relation to a carrier substrate
(main circuit board 33), as called for in claim 1. Therefore, according to the
Examiner, the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by Bellomo. The sole
issue in dispute in the Examiner’s anticipation theory is whether Bellomo’s
module 36, with memory modules 38 thereon, is a “semiconductor device”
as that terminology is used in claim 1.
The Examiner’s alternative position (Answer 4-5) is that it would
have been obvious to form the Bellomo receptacle (connector portion 32) to
directly receive semiconductor devices comparable to memory modules 38,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013