Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
According to the Examiner, Hristake teaches every element of the
claimed device with the exception of a “cutout section adapted for mating
with said longitudinal portion such that said longitudinal portion lies flush
with an outer front edge of said electronic circuit board when said insertion
force is being maintained” (Answer 10). To make up for this deficiency in
Hristake, the Examiner relies on Na to teach a circuit board comprising a
cutout portion allowing a longitudinal portion of a device to lie flush with
the outer edge of the circuit (Answer 11). Based on this evidence, the
Examiner finds that it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Hristake with the teachings of Na “to accommodate an additional device
specific shape/size” (id.).
In response, Appellant asserts that 17 depends from claim 16, which
“is patentable over Hristake due to the deficiencies discussed above” (Br. 16,
emphasis removed). As discussed above, we find no deficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Since Appellant fails to identify any
deficiency in the combination of Hristake and Na, we affirm the rejection of
claim 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Hristake and Na.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 16,
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake and the
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Hristake and Na.
We reverse the rejection of claims 3-5, 8, 13, 15, and 19-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013