Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
with the rack connector, the PC board is thereafter held in place by friction
force provided by the connector and an additional mechanism of some kind .
. . [is] used to prevent dislodgment of the PC board from the rack” (Br. 10).
To install a PC board into a PC board rack, Hristake teaches that
the board is placed into a slot in the rack with the lever 44
pivoted upwardly to a raised position. The rack slot is oriented
such that the PC board's lower edge is positioned immediately
above the multi-terminal connector (not shown) at a lower
portion of the rack. Pivoting the lever downwardly about the
pivot pin 48 yieldably biases the pawl 46 into engagement with
the underside of a ledge 52 that is part of the rack. This applies
a downward force to the PC board, via the pivot pin, to urge the
board into engagement with the connector. After the lever has
been pivoted fully downwardly to a lowered position (as
depicted in FIG. 2), a secondary lock 54 is engaged, to lock the
PC board in place.
(Hristake, col. 4, ll. 50-63.) As illustrated in figure 5 above, the secondary
lock (54) is at the second end of Hristake’s device. Hristake teaches that
when the secondary lock (54) is engaged, the PC board is locked in place.
As we understand it, if the PC board is locked in place, the board is
prevented from becoming disconnected from the connector. Accordingly,
we disagree with Appellant’s assertion.
On reflection, we find no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Appellant does not separately
argue claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 falls together with claim 6. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013