Appeal 2006-3357
Application 10/310,311
including a receptacle “for receiving at least an edge portion of the at least
one semiconductor device” and at least one assembly member “configured
to couple to the at least one semiconductor device.” As such, the only
references to a “semiconductor device” in claim 1 are directed to the manner
in which the claimed system is intended to be used and the uses for which
the recited interconnection receptacle and assembly member are configured.
Bellomo’s edge card interconnection system, including connector portion 32
and module latching and protection mechanism 40 appears reasonably
capable of securing a semiconductor device with the configuration of
module 36. More specifically, Bellomo’s connector portion 32 appears
reasonably capable of receiving at least an edge portion of such a
semiconductor device and Bellomo’s module latching and protection
mechanism 40, appears reasonably capable of coupling to such a
semiconductor device. Thus, regardless of whether or not Bellomo’s
module 36 taken in combination with memory modules 38 in fact can
reasonably be considered to be a “semiconductor device,” Bellomo meets
the limitations of claim 1 at issue in this appeal.
Moreover, in any event, nothing in the definition of “semiconductor
device” urged by Appellants (FF 1) requires that the “semiconductor device”
consist solely of semiconducting material. Further, while Appellants’
Specification distinguishes daughter boards from “minimally packaged
semiconductor devices,” the Specification does not expressly distinguish
between a “semiconductor device,” the language used in Appellants’ claim
1, and a daughter board or circuit board (FF 3). As conceded by Appellants
(FF 2), the memory modules 38 are “semiconductor devices” and thus must
be made with semiconducting material. Bellomo’s module 36 includes
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013