Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
accommodate boards of varying height. In this regard, we note that rather
than discussing the over travel of a board during mating into the mating
connector, this portion of Hristake teaches that the device’s leaf spring will
be more or less compressed to account for the height of the board. The
Examiner has failed to identify any section in Hristake, and we find none
that expressly or inherently teaches a board over traveling into the mating
connector.
On reflection, we reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Claims 4 and 5 depend from
claim 3. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake for the same reasons as
claim 3.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 is drawn to a method of locking a printed wiring board into a
connector, which is mounted to a housing and has at least one guide for
positioning the board with respect to the connector. The method comprises
five steps:
1. placing a board within the guide in a direction such that the board
will, upon the application of insertion force thereupon, move into mated
relationship with said connector;
2. applying insertion force to the board to move the board toward the
connector until a first end of a device which is pivotally mounted to the
board engages with an edge of the housing;
3. rotating the device so that a longitudinal portion of the device
engages on a portion of the board;
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013