Ex Parte Rubenstein

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2007

10379652 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRANDON A. RUBENSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: July 25, 2007
____________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and LORA M.
GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-24, the only
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a device for insertion and removal of a
circuit board into a mating connector (claims 1-5 and 19-24), a method of
locking a printed wiring board into a connector (claims 6-13), a latching
device (claims 14-18), and a printed wiring board (claim 18). Claims 1, 6,
10, 14, and 18 are illustrative:
1. A device for insertion and removal of a circuit board into a mating
connector, said connector positioned within a housing, said device
comprising:

a first end for pivotal engagement with said circuit board, said first
end also adapted to mate with a front surface of said housing when said
circuit board to which said device is pivotally engaged begins to engage said
connector; and

a second end disposed longitudinally from said first end, said second
end adapted with a latch having a slot for releasably mating with a
protrusion on said circuit board such that when said board is engaged with
said connector said second end becomes releasably mated to said protrusion
thereby latching said board to said connector wherein said first end and said
second end are part of one continuous member of said device.

6. A method of locking a printed wiring board into a connector, said
connector mounted to a housing, said housing having at least one guide for
positioning said board with respect to said connector, said method
comprising:

placing a board within said guide in a direction such that said board
will, upon application of insertion force thereupon, move into mated
relationship with said connector;

applying said insertion force to said board to move said board toward
said connector until a first end of a device which is pivotally mounted to said
board engages with an edge of said housing;

2
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

rotating said device so that a longitudinal portion of said device
engages on a portion of said board;
continuing to apply force to said device so as t move said board and
said connector into said mated relationship; and

retaining said device in an engaged position on said portion of said
board, even after said external insertion force has been removed, said
engaged position maintaining a force to bias said board into said connector
and preventing said board from becoming disconnected from said connector
at least in part by said first end of said device engaging said edge of said
housing.

18. A printed wiring board (PWB) adapted for latching into a mated
relationship with a housing mounted connector, said PWB comprising:

a protrusion for releasably accepting a latching mechanism, said
latching mechanism operable, in conjunction with said protrusion, and with
an outer portion of said housing, for maintaining positive force between said
PWB and said connector to maintain positive electrical contact between said
PWB and said connector after externally applied insertion force has been
removed.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Hristake US 5,414,594 May 9, 1995
Na US 6,537,085 Mar. 25, 2003

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-16 and 18-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hristake.
2. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Hristake and Na.
We affirm-in-part.

3
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

DISCUSSION
Anticipation:
Claims 1-16 and 18-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hristake.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to a device. The device comprises one continuous
member having a first end and a second end disposed longitudinally from
said first end. According to claim 1, the device is for the insertion and
removal of a circuit board into a mating connector that is positioned within a
housing. In this regard, the first end pivotally engages a circuit board and is
adapted to mate with a front surface of the housing when the circuit board
begins to engage a connector. The second end is adapted with a latch having
a slot for releasably mating with a protrusion on a circuit board such that
when the circuit board is engaged with a connector the second end becomes
releasably mated to a protrusion thereby latching the board to the connector.
The Examiner finds that Hristake teaches a device that comprises a
first end and a second end (Answer 3). In addition, the Examiner finds that
since Hristake’s first and second ends are connected to the device, they are
part of one continuous member (Answer 4). For clarity, we direct attention
to Hristake’s figure 5.

4
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

Figure 5 is said to depict “a perspective view of the underside of the
insertion/extraction apparatus of FIG. 2” (Hristake, col. 3, ll. 62-63). As
illustrated by figure 5, Hristake’s device comprises one continuous member
having a first end (46) and a second end (54), wherein the second end is
disposed longitudinally from the first end.
The Examiner finds that Hristake’s device is for the insertion and
removal of a circuit board into a mating connector that is positioned within a
housing (Answer 3). The Examiner finds that the first end (46) of Hristake’s
device pivotally engages (via pin 48) with a circuit board and is adapted to
mate with a front surface of the housing when the circuit board begins to
engage a connector. In addition, the Examiner finds that the second end (54)
of Hristake’s device is adapted with a latch having a slot for releasably
mating with a protrusion on a circuit board such that when the circuit board
5
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

is engaged with a connector the second end becomes releasably mated to a
protrusion thereby latching the board to the connector (Answer 3-4).
In response, Appellant asserts that Hristake fail to teach that the first
and second ends are part of one continuous member. In this regard,
Appellant asserts that Hristake’s first end (44) is connected by a pivot pin
(48) to the remainder of Hristake’s device. As such, Appellant asserts the
first end is separate from the second end (Br. 9). Accordingly, Appellant
asserts that the first and second ends “are not part of one continuous body, as
required by claim 1” (id.). In this regard, Appellant asserts that the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary “definition of continuous is: ‘marked by
uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence’” (Reply Br. 4-5,
footnote omitted). From this, Appellant asserts that since the first end (44)
and the remainder of Hristake’s device are separate, disjointed, and
interrupted from one another it cannot be said that they represent part of one
continuous body (Reply Br. 5).
In response, the Examiner finds that the first end (44) and the second
end (54) of Hristake’s device are attached and assembled to form one
continuous connected piece (Answer 11). In our opinion, the Examiner has
the better argument. Attachment of the first end via a pivot pin (48) does not
cause the first end to be separated in space, time, or sequence from the
remainder of Hristake’s device. To the contrary, Hristake’s device
comprises one continuous member having a first end and a second end
disposed longitudinally from said first end. We find nothing in Appellant’s
claim to suggest that the first end cannot be attached via a pivot pin to the
second end of the device.
6
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Appellant does not
separately argue claim 2. Accordingly, claim 2 falls together with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from and further limits the slot in the device of claim
1. Specifically, claim 3 requires that the slot has a notch for mating with the
board protrusion. In addition, claim 3 requires that while the slot serves to
lock the board into a mated relationship with the connector, it allows for
over travel of the circuit board during mating into the mating connector.
The Examiner finds that Hristake’s device has a slot with a notch (74)
for mating with a board protrusion (Answer 4). According to the Examiner,
while the notch (74) in Hristake’s device serves to lock the board into a
mated relationship with the connector, it allows for over travel of the circuit
board during mating into the mating connector (id.).
Appellant disagrees, asserting that Hristake teaches that pivoting the
device’s lever (e.g., 44) operates to seat the circuit board into the connector
and that once seated further pivoting of the pawl (46) is precluded (Br. 14).
Accordingly, Appellant asserts that Hristake “cannot allow for over travel of
the circuit board during mating of the board into the connector. . . .”
Appellant has the better argument.
We recognize the Examiner’s reliance on Hristake, column 5, line 23+
to support the assertion that Hristake’s device allows for over travel of the
circuit board during mating into the mating connector (Answer 4).
However, this portion of Hristake discusses the use of the device to
7
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

accommodate boards of varying height. In this regard, we note that rather
than discussing the over travel of a board during mating into the mating
connector, this portion of Hristake teaches that the device’s leaf spring will
be more or less compressed to account for the height of the board. The
Examiner has failed to identify any section in Hristake, and we find none
that expressly or inherently teaches a board over traveling into the mating
connector.
On reflection, we reverse the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Claims 4 and 5 depend from
claim 3. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake for the same reasons as
claim 3.

Claim 6:
Claim 6 is drawn to a method of locking a printed wiring board into a
connector, which is mounted to a housing and has at least one guide for
positioning the board with respect to the connector. The method comprises
five steps:
1. placing a board within the guide in a direction such that the board
will, upon the application of insertion force thereupon, move into mated
relationship with said connector;
2. applying insertion force to the board to move the board toward the
connector until a first end of a device which is pivotally mounted to the
board engages with an edge of the housing;
3. rotating the device so that a longitudinal portion of the device
engages on a portion of the board;
8
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
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
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

Claim 7:
Claim 7 depends from and further limits the retaining step of claim 6
to include providing positive feed-back to a user that said engaged position
is being maintained. According to the Examiner, by remaining in the
engaged position, Hristake’s device inherently provides positive feed-back
to a user that the device is being maintained in the engaged position (Answer
5). Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not identified which of
Hristake’s structures would inherently provide the claimed limitation (Br.
15).
The invention of claim 7 does not require a particular structure to
provide positive feed-back. Claim 7 simply requires that positive feed-back
is provided to a user that the engaged position is being maintained. We find
no error in Examiner’s finding that by remaining in the retained position the
device provides positive feed-back to a user that the engaged position is
being maintained. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake.

Claim 8:
Claim 8 depends from and further limits the method of claim 6 to
further comprise briefly reapplying a force in the direction of the insertion
force to an outer edge of the device to release the maintained engaged
position.
The Examiner finds that the method steps are inherent to Hristake’s
device, wherein a force is applied to an outer edge to release the device from
its engaged position (Answer 5). In contrast, Appellant argues that Hristake
does not teach reapplication of insertion force to release the device from its
11
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

engaged position (Br. 14). Appellant has the better argument. According to
Hristake, the PC board is extracted from the PC board rack by manually
releasing the secondary lock (54) and pivoting the lever (44) upwardly
toward its raised position (Hristake, col. 4, ll. 64-67). 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.
On reflection, we reverse the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake.

Claim 10:
Claim 10 is drawn to a device for locking a printed wiring board
(PWB) into a connector, which is mounted to a housing and has at least one
guide for positioning the board with respect to the connector. The device
comprises:
1. means for applying an external insertion force to the PWB to move
the PWB toward the connector along the guide, the means having a first end
pivotally attached to the PWB board, the first end having a portion for
engaging with a portion of the housing;
2. means for contacting a front edge of the PWB along a longitudinal
portion of the device: and
3. means for maintaining at least a portion of the insertion force so
that the means for contacting the front edge maintains a force to bias the
PWB into the connector after the external insertion force has been removed.
12
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
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

we reverse the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hristake.

Claim 15:
Claim 15 depends from and further limits the device of claim 14 to
further comprise a means operative upon the reapplying of the external
insertion force for releasing the maintained positive force. As set forth
above with respect to claims 8 and 13, 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, we reverse the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hristake.

Claim 18:
Claim 18 is drawn to a printed wiring board (PWB) adapted for
latching into a mated relationship with a housing mounted connector. The
PWB comprises:
1. a protrusion for releasably accepting a latching mechanism,
2. the latching mechanism operates, in conjunction with the
protrusion, and with an outer portion of the housing, for maintaining positive
force between the PWB and the connector to maintain positive electrical
contact between the PWB and the connector after externally applied
insertion force has been removed.
As the Examiner points out, Hristake teaches a printed circuit board
(40) adapted for latching into a mated relationship with a housing (42)
14
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
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

electronic circuit board during mating of the electronic circuit board into the
electrical connector; and
b. a body extending between said ends, said body having upper and
lower portions separated by a distance to allow at least a portion of the board
to fit between the portions when the latch mechanism is latched to the pin.
Hristake’s device is discussed above. According to the Examiner, the
second end (54) of Hristake’s device is disposed laterally from the first end
and comprises a latch mechanism (74) for releasably latching to a pin (76)
mounted on the board, wherein operation of the latch mechanism provides
over travel of the electronic circuit board during mating into the electrical
connector (Answer 9). However, as discussed above with regard to claim 3,
the Examiner has failed to identify any section in Hristake, and we find
none, that expressly or inherently teaches a board over traveling into the
mating connector.
On reflection, we reverse the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake. Claims 20-24 depend from claim
3. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hristake for the same reasons as claim 19.

Obviousness:
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Hristake and Na. Claim 17 depends from and
further limits the electronic circuit board of claim 16 to include 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.
16
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
Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with

this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

lbg

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS CO 80527-2400
18