Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
4. continuing to apply force to the device so as to move the board and
the connector into the mated relationship; and
5. retaining the device in an engaged position on the portion of the
board, even after the external insertion force has been removed, the engaged
position maintaining a force to bias the board into the connector and
preventing the board from becoming disconnected from the connector at
least in part by the first end of the device engaging the edge of the
housing.
The Examiner finds that the claimed method is inherent to the
structure of the device taught by Hristake (Answer 4). According to the
Examiner, Hristake teaches a connector mounted to a housing and having at
least one guide for positioning the board with respect to the connector (id.).
The Examiner finds that Hristake teaches a device having a first end (46)
pivotally mounted to the board that engages with an edge of the housing
(id.). The Examiner finds that Hristake teaches that the device is rotated so
that a longitudinal portion of the device engages a portion of the board,
thereby retaining said device in an engaged portion even after the external
insertion force has been removed, said engaged position maintaining a force
to bias said board into said connector and preventing said board form
becoming disconnected from said connector at least in part by said first end
of said device engaging said edge of said housing (Answer 4-5).
In response, Appellant asserts that Hristake fails to teach that when
the insertion force has been removed the engaged position maintains a force
to bias the board into the connector and prevent the board from becoming
disconnected from the connector (Br. 9). According to Appellant, “Hristake
teaches that after the apparatus is used to move the PC board into connection
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013