Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
the battery pillar properly can be characterized as “mating” with the angled
structure of the lifter. The claim does not require that both surfaces that form the
“mating angled structure” of the boss have a mating relationship with both surfaces
that form the “angled structure” of the lifter.
Finally, because the cylindrical cavity 67 retains battery pillar 42 in the
raised position shown in Figure 11B after manual pressure is released from finger-
hooking portion 79 (col. 11, ll. 22-27; col. 11, ll. 48-53), Ohgami satisfies the
requirement of claim 7 that “the mating angled structure of the boss is retainable
against the inwardly angled structure [of the lifter].”
For the above reasons, we are affirming the § 102(b) rejection with respect
to claim 7. The rejection is also affirmed with respect to independent claims 14
and 22, as to which Appellant simply repeats the arguments made with respect to
claim 7.
Of the dependent claims rejected for anticipation by Ohgami, Appellant
separately argued only claims 10 and 17 in the Brief (Br. 9-12), which read:
10. The component mount of claim 7, wherein the inwardly
angled structure and the mating angled structure comprise
substantially flat abutment surfaces that are substantially angled
relative to a direction of movement between the inwardly angled
structure and the mating angled structure.
17. The removable computer component of claim 14, wherein
the angled retention structure and the mating angled structure
comprise substantially parallel abutment surfaces.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013