UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO"

Clifton Pierce
7 years ago
Views:

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO Appeal Technology Center 2800 Decided: August 7, 2009 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from the Examiner s rejection of claims 2, 5-8, and (App. Br. 10). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 6(b). 1 Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been canceled. (Appeal Brief filed January 14, 2008, hereinafter App. Br., 4). Neither Appellants nor the Examiner

. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from the Examiner s rejection of claims 2, 5-8, and 10-15.

2 We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant describes an electrical connector, which is said to protect terminals from being damaged during transport. (Spec. [0001]). Claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 13. An electrical connector comprising: an insulative housing having a base defining a top mating interface thereof, a plurality of terminals disposed in the housing and having upper connecting portions with at distal ends thereof upper mating sections essentially extending upwardly from the top mating interface; the upper connecting portions of at least two adjacent terminals in a same row having projections thereof, from a top view, at least partly overlapped; a floating cover mounted above the top mating interface of the base and being movable up and down, the floating cover defining at least one slot therethrough and extending in a row direction along which, from a top view, the whole upper connecting portions essentially direct to, said slot configured to allow the upper mating section of the terminal to move relative to the floating cover not only in a vertical direction but also in the row direction; wherein said at least one slot each is configured to compactly and constrainedly receive the upper mating sections of the at least two adjacent terminals in said same row. appeal is: THE REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on indicate the status of claim 9. However, claim 9 appears to have been canceled in the Amendment dated November 24, Thus, claim 9 is not before us on appeal. 2

reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 13.

3 Busacco US 5,248,262 Sep. 28, 1993 Hamren US 6,459,288 B2 Oct. 1, 2002 Koopman US 6,585,527 B2 Jul. 1, 2003 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5-8, and under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koopman in view of Hamren and Busacco. ISSUE Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that an electrical connector having a floating cover with at least one slot as claimed would have been obvious over Koopman, Hamren, and Busacco? FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. The Examiner found that Koopman discloses substantially the same electrical connector as claimed except for a floating cover. (Examiner s Answer entered May 13, 2008, hereinafter Ans., 3). 2. The Examiner found that Hamren describes a floating cover (240) defining at least one slot (254) and extending in a row direction. (Ans. 3-4; Hamren, Fig. 5). 3. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form the connector assembly of Koopman with a floating cover as taught by Hamren to protect the terminals when the connector is 3

ISSUE Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that an electrical connector having a floating cover with at least one slot as claimed would have been obvious over

4 not in use and provide a resilient seating for the mating device. (Ans. 4). 4. The Examiner found that Koopman as modified by Hamren does not disclose a slot configured for receiving a row of terminals. (Ans. 4). 5. The Examiner found that Busacco discloses a cover (11a) with a plurality of slots (65). (Ans. 4 and 8; Busacco, col. 5, ll. 3-16, Fig. 1). 6. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form the slot configured for receiving a row of terminals to maintain structural strength. (Ans. 4 and 8). PRINCIPLES OF LAW In KSR, the Supreme Court explained, [w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, 103 likely bars its patentability. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). It is well established that it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, [c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (emphasis in original). In responding to a prima facie case of obviousness, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are 4

The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form the slot configured for receiving a row of terminals to maintain structural strength. (Ans. 4 and 8).

5 based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). ANALYSIS Appellant has grouped claims 13 and 14, 7-12, and 2, 5, 6, and 15 separately. However, Appellant relies on similar arguments for the groups of claims. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 13, which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by Appellant pursuant to 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii). 2 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner s reasons for combining Koopman, Hamren, and Busacco. Rather, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in not according patentable weight to the functional language at least one slot each is configured to compactly and constrainedly receive the upper mating sections of the at least two adjacent terminals in said same row recited in claim 13. (App. Br ). However, Appellant has not adequately explained what structural features are imparted to the slots by such functional language. Further, Appellant has not addressed the Examiner s finding that Busacco teaches the use of a cover (11a) with a plurality of slots (65) compactly and constrainedly receiving at least two adjacent terminals. (Ans. 8). Accordingly, Appellant s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant s remaining arguments focus on the individual disclosure of Hamren and Busacco rather than the combination of references as a whole. 2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R (c)(1)(vii) (2007). 5

Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 13, which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by Appellant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

6 Specifically, Appellant argues that element (254) of Hamren is not a narrow slot for compactly and constrainedly receiving the upper mating sections of two adjacent terminals in the same row, but a huge opening for receiving the whole matrix type contacts, not for a row of contacts. (App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that the upper connecting portions of Busacco do not extend in a row direction as required in the claims, but extend in a direction perpendicular to the row direction. (App. Br ). Appellant further contends that the prior art cannot be combined to obtain the connector recited in the claims because upper part (11a) of Busacco relied on by the Examiner as a cover is not designed for up and down movement, and treating the upper part (11a) as a floating cover teaches away from the purposes of Busacco and would produce an inoperable device. (App. Br ). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Busacco is not relied upon for using the upper part (11a) as a floating cover, but to form the floating cover of Hamren having element (254) with a plurality of slots. (Ans. 10). Further, the Examiner relies on Koopman and Hamren for the structure of the upper connecting portions. (Ans. 7 and 9). Appellants have not presented any persuasive evidence that fitting the floating cover of Hamren as applied to the connector of Koopman with the slots of Busacco to arrive at the claimed connector would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. CONCLUSION Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that an electrical connector having a floating cover with at 6

Appellant argues that the upper connecting portions of Busacco do not extend in a row direction as required in the claims, but extend in a direction perpendicular to the row direction. (App. Br.

7 least one slot as claimed would have been obvious over Koopman, Hamren, and Busacco. ORDER We affirm the Examiner s decision rejecting claims 2, 5-8, and under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koopman in view of Hamren and Busacco. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED cam WEI TE CHUNG FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC MEMOREX DRIVE SANTA CLARA CA

103(a) as being unpatentable over Koopman in view of Hamren and Busacco.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JOEL E. SHORT, FREDERIC DELLY, MARK F. LOGAN, and DANIEL TOOMEY Appeal 2009-002481 1 Technology Center