DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 10/20/2023 and 01/04/2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant has cited to nine separate U.S. patent applications as non-patent literature. Patent applications are unambiguously patent literature unless the application is not published. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) to provide copies of unpublished U.S. applications. If the cited applications are in fact published applications, the publication number corresponding to each application should have been included in the IDS rather than the application number1.
As Applicant has improperly cited these documents without providing the requisite copies and has not cited any corresponding U.S. patent publications, the information contained within the cited applications and their file wrappers has not been considered unless it is explicitly cited on Examiner’s Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,114,182 (“the patent”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,551,580 (“Regnier”).
With respect to instant claim 1, the patent discloses:
An electrical connector system (claim 1, preamble) comprising:
a cage (“a heat dissipation module”) including:
a lower slot (inherent; claim 1 defines vertically stacked connectors wherein the connectors are located at the second end of the cage and wherein mating transceivers are inserted at the first end of the cage; thus, there must inherently be some form of “lower slot” for the lower of the vertically stacked connectors) that includes a first end and a second end opposed to the first end of the lower slot (inherent; the connector is located at a second end that opposed the first end of the cage);
a lower electrical connector located at the second end of the lower slot (“receptacle connectors that are located at the second end and that are vertically stacked”);
an upper slot (inherent; claim 1 defines vertically stacked connectors wherein the connectors are located at the second end of the cage and wherein mating transceivers are inserted at the first end of the cage; thus, there must inherently be some form of “lower slot” for the lower of the vertically stacked connectors) that includes a first end and a second end opposed to the first end of the upper slot (inherent; the connector is located at a second end that opposed the first end of the cage); and
an upper electrical connector located at the second end of the upper slot (“receptacle connectors that are located at the second end and that are vertically stacked”);
a lower heat sink (claim 6) that is located between the lower and the upper slots (“a heat sink located between the two receptacle connectors”) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (inherent function of a heat sink).
The patent does not explicitly disclose an upper heat sink located adjacent the second slot on a side of the second slot opposed to the lower heat sink. Regnier, however, discloses a substantially identical electrical connector system having an additional heat sink placed on top of the upper slot for the purposes of providing additional heat dissipation for the stacked receptacle connectors (see FIGS 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claims of the patent by adding an additional heat sink atop the heat dissipation module for the purposes of dissipating additional heat. Thus, instant claim 1 is unpatentable over patented claim 6 in view of Regnier.
With respect to instant claim 2, the combination of the patent in view of Regnier (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 1 and further discloses the lower and upper electrical connectors being vertically stacked in a direction orthogonal to a transceiver mating direction (the patent, claim 1; “two receptacle connectors…are vertically stacked in relation to a base substrate” and “the heat dissipation module includes a passage” in which “air flows…parallel to the transceiver-mating direction,” thus requiring the transceiver mating direction to be parallel to the substrate and orthogonal to the vertical direction).
With respect to instant claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 1 and Regnier further discloses an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
With respect to instant claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 3 and Regnier further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
With respect to instant claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 4 and the patent further discloses the lower electrical connector being a PCB-mounted connector (“two receptacle connectors…are vertically stacked in relation to a base substrate”).
With respect to instant claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 1 and Regnier further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
With respect to instant claim 7, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 1 and Regnier further discloses the upper and lower electrical connectors being receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver (col. 3, ll. 59-63 disclose mating interfaces 72a and 72b being “a single card slot” and FIGS 8 and 9 show how a mating transceiver inserts into the slots, thus the mating interfaces 72a and 72b may be reasonably construed as “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim; since the mating connectors 272a and 272b are depicted as the same type of connector, they may be reasonably interpreted as also being “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim).
With respect to instant claim 8, the analysis provided with respect to claim 1 is equally applicable to the limitations recited in claim 8. The first combination discloses the upper and lower slots configured to receive an upper and lower transceiver, discloses a lower heat sink located between the upper and lower slots to provide convective heat transfer, and discloses an upper heat sink above the upper slot.
With respect to instant claim 9, the first combination discloses upper and lower connectors (“two receptacle connectors…are vertically stacked”) and which are at a first end of their respective slot (inherent; while the patent calls it “a second end,” it may also be called “a first end” since the instant claim does not recite a second end or configuration relative to another end.
With respect to instant claim 10, the first combination discloses the limitations of claim 8 and further discloses the heat sink extending between the upper and lower connectors (inherent; the heat sink of patented claim 6 is between the two connectors; since it is three-dimensional, it must extend, to some extent, between the upper and lower connectors).
With respect to instant claim 11, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 8 and Regnier further discloses an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
With respect to instant claims 12 and 13, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 8 and further discloses the upper (Regnier; Summary sections discloses airflow through cooling channel 230 and those of ordinary skill would recognize that cooling fins 296 are in contact with air, despite the lack of explicit statement by Regnier) and lower (patented claim 11 discloses air flowing over the lower heat sink; air is a fluid) heat sinks being fluid cooled.
With respect to instant claim 14, the analysis provided with respect to claim 1 is equally applicable to the limitations recited in claim 14. Instant claim 14 differs from instant claim 1 solely as a matter of how instant claim 14 recites the cage and the placement of the upper connector. The scope of the two claims, however, is functionally identical.
With respect to instant claims 15-19, Applicant merely recites the same subject matter recited in claims 3-7; thus, the rejection of claims 3-7 above is equally applicable to claims 15-19.
With respect to instant claim 20, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in instant claim 1 but does not explicitly state that the upper and lower connectors are identical to each other. However, patented claim 1 recites “two receptacle connectors” rather than “a first and a second receptacle connector.” Since the patented claims recite two connectors of one type, it may be reasonably inferred that the upper and lower connectors of claim 1 are, in fact, identical to each other. As such, Examiner finds that the subject matter of instant claim 20 is inherently disclosed by patented claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,534,145; 11,372,178; 11,500,167; and 11,650,383, each in view of Regnier. For purposes of brevity, a comparison of the instant claims to claims of each patent in view of Regnier are provided in a table format below. Motivations for modification are substantially identical to those discussed above, thus additional discussion will not be provided unless the patented claims or motivation to combine would substantially differ from those detailed above. Additional discussion may be found in accompanying footnotes. Examiner is happy to elaborate further if necessary.
Instant Claim
10,534,145
11,372,178
11,500,167
11,650,383
1
Claim 4 in view of Regnier2
Claim 11 in view of Regnier3
Claim 12 in view of Regneir4
Claim 10 in view of Regnier5
2
Inherent to claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
3
Regnier, FIG 8
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
4
Regnier, FIG 9
Regnier, FIG 9
Claim 1
Regnier, FIG 9
5
Obvious to mount the cage of ‘145 to a PCB.
Claim 1
Obvious to mount cage of ‘167 to a PCB.
Obvious to mount the cage of ‘383 to a PCB.
6
Regnier, FIG 9
Regneir, FIG 9
Claim 1
Regnier, FIG 9
7
Regnier, as discussed above
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
8
Claim 4 in view of Regnier; see footnote 2
Claim 11 in view of Regnier; see footnote 3
Claim 12 in view of Regnier; see footnote 4
Claim 10 in view of Regnier; see footnote 5
9
Inherent to claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
10
Result of modification placing heatsink in passage of claim 4
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 10
11
Regnier, FIG 8
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
12
Inherent to modification
Claim 13; air is a fluid
Claim 14; air is a fluid
Claim 12; air is a fluid
13
Inherent to modification
Inherent to modification
Inherent to modification
Inherent to modification
14
Claim 4 in view of Regnier; see footnote 2
Claim 11 in view of Regnier; see footnote 3
Claim 12 in view of Regnier; see footnote 4
Claim 10 in view of Regnier; see footnote 5
15
Regnier, FIG 8
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
16
Regnier, FIG 9
Regnier, FIG 9
Claim 1
Regnier, FIG 9
17
Obvious to mount cage on a PCB
Claim 1
Obvious to mount cage on a PCB
Obvious to mount cage on a PCB
18
Regnier, FIG 9
Regnier, FIG 9
Claim 1
Regnier, FIG 9
19
Regnier, as discussed above
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
20
N/A
N/A
Claim 1; as both connectors are cable connectors, they may be reasonably interpreted as “identical” in that they are the same type of connector.
N/A
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant recites “the second slot” in the second to last line of the claim. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation. For purposes of examination, “the second slot” will be interpreted as “the upper slot.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,551,580 (“Regnier”).
Regarding claim 1, Regnier discloses:
An electrical connector system (title, abstract) comprising:
a cage (FIG 21:220) including:
a lower slot (bottom port 225b) that includes a first end (end of slot closest to front face 221) and a second end opposed to the first end of the lower slot (end of slot closest to rear face 222);
a lower electrical connector (mating interface 272b) located at the second end of the lower slot (see FIG 22);
an upper slot (225a) that includes a first end and a second end opposed to the first end of the upper slot (ends arranged in the same manner as the lower slot ends discussed above); and
an upper electrical connector (272a) located at the second end of the upper slot (in the same manner as the connector of the lower slot);
a lower heat sink (FIG 23:264,266) that is located between the lower and the upper slots (as shown by FIG 23) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (fins 266 are in cooling channel 230, thus one of ordinary skill would understand and appreciate that the purpose of the fins is to provide convective heat transfer to air flowing through channel 230, including through fins 266); and
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located adjacent the upper slot on a side of the upper slot opposed to the lower heat sink (as shown in FIG 23).
Regarding claim 2, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the lower and upper electrical connectors are vertically stacked (see, e.g., FIG 21) in a direction that is orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to a transceiver-mating direction (as may be seen in FIGS 21-24).
Regarding claim 3, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
Regarding claim 4, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 5, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses the lower connector being a PCB-mounted connector (see FIG 1, showing how the cage of the disclosed connector system is affixed to a PCB, thereby making the lower connector “a PCB-mounted connector” in the sense that it is affixed to a PCB).
Regarding claim 6, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower electrical connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 7, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the upper and lower electrical connectors being receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver (col. 3, ll. 59-63 disclose mating interfaces 72a and 72b being “a single card slot” and FIGS 8 and 9 show how a mating transceiver inserts into the slots, thus the mating interfaces 72a and 72b may be reasonably construed as “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim; since the mating connectors 272a and 272b are depicted as the same type of connector, they may be reasonably interpreted as also being “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim).
Regarding claim 8, Regnier discloses:
A heat dissipation module (the Summary section discloses a cooling function, thus FIGS 21-24 may be reasonably interpreted as depicting a heat dissipation module) comprising:
an upper slot (225a) configured to receive an upper transceiver (FIG 8);
a lower slot (225b) configured to receive a lower transceiver (FIG 9);
a lower heat sink (FIG 23:264, 266) that is located between the upper and the lower slots (as shown) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (Summary); and
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located above the upper slot (as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses an upper electrical connector (272a) located at a first end of the upper slot (as shown in FIGS 22-24) and a lower electrical connector (272b) located at a first end of the lower slot (as shown in FIGS 22-24).
Regarding claim 10, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and further discloses the heat sink extending between the upper and lower electrical connectors (fins 266 extend vertically between upper and lower slots 225a and 225b as shown by FIGS 22 and 23).
Regarding claim 11, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 9 and further discloses an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper electrical connector (see FIG 8).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses both the upper and lower heat sinks being fluid cooled (air is a fluid; Summary sections discloses airflow through cooling channel 230 and those of ordinary skill would recognize that cooling fins 296 are in contact with air, despite the lack of explicit statement by Regnier).
Regarding claim 14, Regnier discloses:
A stacked receptacle connector assembly (title, abstract, FIGS 1, 21-24) comprising:
a cage (220) that is configured to be mounted to a substrate (as shown by FIG 1), that includes walls (as shown) defining an upper slot (225a) configured to receive an upper transceiver (as shown by FIG 8) and defining a lower slot (225b) configured to receive a lower transceiver (as shown by FIG 9), and that extends between a first end (front face 221) and a second end rearward of the first end (rear face 222);
a lower receptacle connector (272b) at the second end of the lower slot (see FIGS 22-23); and
an upper receptacle connector (272a) stacked in the cage above the lower receptacle connector (as shown by FIGS 21-24);
a lower heat sink (264, 266) that is located between the upper and the lower slots (see FIG 23) and that provides convective heat transfer to air flowing through the lower heat sink (see Summary section discussing cooling channel 230, which contains heat sink 264, 266); and
an upper heat sink (294, 296) located above the upper slot (as shown in FIGS 21-24).
Regarding claim 15, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses an upper cable including a first end connected to the upper receptacle connector (see, e.g., FIG 8 which depicts unlabeled cables that are connected to the upper electrical connector via plug module 100).
Regarding claim 16, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower receptacle connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 17, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 and further discloses the lower receptacle connector being a PCB-mounted connector (see FIG 1, showing how the cage of the disclosed connector system is affixed to a PCB, thereby making the lower connector “a PCB-mounted connector” in the sense that it is affixed to a PCB).
Regarding claim 18, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses a lower cable including a first end connected to the lower receptacle connector (see FIG 9).
Regarding claim 19, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses the upper and lower electrical connectors being receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver (col. 3, ll. 59-63 disclose mating interfaces 72a and 72b being “a single card slot” and FIGS 8 and 9 show how a mating transceiver inserts into the slots, thus the mating interfaces 72a and 72b may be reasonably construed as “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim; since the mating connectors 272a and 272b are depicted as the same type of connector, they may be reasonably interpreted as also being “receptacle connectors configured to receive a card-edge of a mating transceiver” as recited by the instant claim).
Regarding claim 20, Regnier discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses the upper and lower receptacle connectors being identical (as shown by FIGS 21-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 MPEP §609.04(a) provides, in relevant part, “[i]f a U.S. application being listed in an IDS has been issued as a patent or has been published, the application should list the patent or application publication in the IDS instead of the application” (emphasis by Examiner).
2 Claim 1 of ‘145 discloses “a slot” which contains an electrical connector and an additional electrical connector located above the electrical connector, thus inherently reciting upper and lower connectors (claim 3). Claim 4 establishes an airflow channel between the electrical connector and additional electrical connector but does not recite a heatsink placed therein. Thus, instant claim 1 differs from patented claim 4 as a matter of inclusion of heatsinks. With respect to the inclusion of heat sinks, Regnier includes both a lower and upper heatsink for the purposes of enhancing the cooling effect of air passing over and through the cage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify ‘145 to include the heatsinks for the purposes of better cooling the system of ‘145.
3 Claim 1 of ‘178 discloses a cage having upper and lower slots (corresponding to upper and lower openings) with upper and lower connectors. Claim 12 establishes a heat sink between the upper and lower connectors. Thus, instant claim 1 differs from patented claim 12 as a matter of including an upper heatsink. Regnier discloses such, and modification of ‘178 to include such an upper heat sink is obvious for the reasons discussed above.
4 Claim 1 of ‘167 discloses a cage having vertically stacked connectors having respective slots (the passageway between upper and lower connectors effectively defines upper and lower slots). Claim 12 establishes a heat sink between the upper and lower connectors. Thus, instant claim 1 differs from patented claim 12 as a matter of including an upper heatsink. Regnier discloses such, and modification of ‘167 to include such an upper heat sink is obvious for the reasons discussed above.
5 Claim 1 of ‘383 discloses a cage having upper and lower connectors; the heatsink of claim 10 effectively defines first and second slots. Thus, Thus, instant claim 1 differs from patented claim 10 as a matter of including an upper heatsink. Regnier discloses such, and modification of ‘383 to include such an upper heat sink is obvious for the reasons discussed above.