Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
mounted connector (Answer 8). Therefore, as discussed above with regard
to claims 1, 6, and 10, Hristake teaches a PWB encompassed by Appellant’s
claim 18. 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. 12). According to
Appellant, Hristake “teaches that after the lock engages the locking pin, the
PC board is thereafter held in place by friction force provided by the
connector and by some supplementary mechanisms . . . used along the edges
of the PC board, to prevent dislodgment of the PC board from the rack (id.).
We disagree for the reasons set forth with regard to claim 6. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hristake.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is drawn to a device for aiding in latching an electronic
circuit board in a mated relationship with an electrical connector, wherein
the connector is located at a back end of a housing. The device comprises:
1. a first end for engaging a front surface of the housing;
2. means for pivoting the first end around an outer comer of a circuit
board to be latched; and
3. a second end disposed laterally from the first end.
Claim 19 requires that the second end comprises
a. a latch mechanism for releasably latching to a pin mounted on the
board wherein operation of the latch mechanism provides over travel of the
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013