Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
1. A component mount for a computer, comprising:
a component latch movable between a latched configuration and an
unlatched configuration;
a plurality of bosses; and
a lifter engageable with the plurality of bosses to move a component to a
lifted position in the unlatched configuration, wherein the plurality of bosses
comprise a retention structure retainable against a mating retention structure of the
lifter to retain the component in the lifted position.
The Examiner held that
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the device of Ohgami with
more than one boss and associated features of the lifter for preventing
tilting of the component when the component [is] being mounted,
since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working
parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP
§ 2144.04 VI, B.
(Final Action 7.) Appellant, citing In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572, 37 USPQ2d
1127, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that “reliance on per se rules of obviousness
is legally incorrect and must cease”), correctly criticizes the Examiner’s reliance on
the forgoing per se rule (Br. 15).
However, Appellant has not mentioned, let alone addressed, the motivation
given by the Examiner as support for his conclusion that it would have been
obvious to modify Ohgami to use plural bosses and associated lifter features,
namely, a desire to prevent tilting of the component while the component is being
mounted. Instead, Appellant states that “the Examiner does not assert that the
Ohgami reference contains any motivation or suggestion to modify the device
disclosed therein to reach the claimed subject matter” (Br. 15). This argument
overlooks the fact that obviousness can be based on common knowledge and
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013