Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
As discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 6, Hristake teaches a
device encompassed by Appellant’s claim 10. 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.
10-11). According to Appellant, Hristake “teaches that the PC board is 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. 11). We disagree for the reasons set forth with
regard to claim 6. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Appellant does not
separately argue claims 11, 12, 14, and 16. Accordingly, claims 11, 12, 14,
and 16 fall together with claims 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 depends from and further limits the device of claim 10 to
further comprise a means operative upon the reapplying of the external
insertion force for releasing the maintained positive force. We recognize the
Examiner’s reference to Hristake, col. 5, ll. 23+. However, this section of
Hristake fails to teach the reapplication of an external insertion force to
release the positive force maintained by the device. As set forth above with
respect to claim 8, the Examiner has failed to identify any section in
Hristake, and we find none, that expressly or inherently teaches the
reapplication of a force in the direction of the insertion force to an outer
edge of the device to release the maintained engaged position. Accordingly,
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013