Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Appellant does not
separately argue claim 2. Accordingly, claim 2 falls together with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from and further limits the slot in the device of claim
1. Specifically, claim 3 requires that the slot has a notch for mating with the
board protrusion. In addition, claim 3 requires that while the slot serves to
lock the board into a mated relationship with the connector, it allows for
over travel of the circuit board during mating into the mating connector.
The Examiner finds that Hristake’s device has a slot with a notch (74)
for mating with a board protrusion (Answer 4). According to the Examiner,
while the notch (74) in Hristake’s device serves to lock the board into a
mated relationship with the connector, it allows for over travel of the circuit
board during mating into the mating connector (id.).
Appellant disagrees, asserting that Hristake teaches that pivoting the
device’s lever (e.g., 44) operates to seat the circuit board into the connector
and that once seated further pivoting of the pawl (46) is precluded (Br. 14).
Accordingly, Appellant asserts that Hristake “cannot allow for over travel of
the circuit board during mating of the board into the connector. . . .”
Appellant has the better argument.
We recognize the Examiner’s reliance on Hristake, column 5, line 23+
to support the assertion that Hristake’s device allows for over travel of the
circuit board during mating into the mating connector (Answer 4).
However, this portion of Hristake discusses the use of the device to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013