Appeal 2006-3357
Application 10/310,311
memory modules 38 and thus, taken in combination with memory modules
38, is a “semiconductor device” as referred to in claim 1.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Examiner’s position that
the subject matter of claim 1 is anticipated by Bellomo is well taken.
The Examiner’s alternative position, that it would have been obvious
to form the Bellomo receptacle 32 to directly receive semiconductor devices
comparable to memory modules 38, which Appellants concede are
“semiconductor devices,” as this would enable a more direct connection and
would shorten circuit paths, is also well founded. Specifically, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the advantages
of the edge card interconnection system touted by Bellomo, namely,
minimized contact length, control of deflection of contacts, and an easily
manipulated latching mechanism, would improve the connection of the
memory modules 38 to module 36 in the same way. Further, there is no
indication in Bellomo, and Appellants have not provided any evidence, that
such a modification would have been beyond the technical capabilities of a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in
determining that such a modification would have been obvious.
In light of the above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting the subject matter of claim 1 as being anticipated by or, in the
alternative, as being unpatentable over Bellomo, either alone or taken in
combination with Richards. The rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-20
standing or falling with claim 1, is sustained.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013