CHIBA, Shingo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2019

15238801 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/238,801 08/17/2016 Shingo CHIBA Q228343 1036
23373 7590 10/23/2019
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
VU, HIEN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHINGO CHIBA and AKIRA SHINCHI

Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LILAN REN, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, and 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Yazaki
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

2
BACKGROUND

The present application generally relates to electrical connectors.
Specification (filed Aug. 17, 2016) (“Spec.”) 1–2. Electrical connectors of
the type at issue include a housing structure. The Specification describes a
“terminal holding hole” formed in the wall of the housing. Id. at 1. A
terminal includes a projecting structure that permits it to be press fitted into
the terminal holding hole. Id. at 1. These structures are depicted in Figure
2A of the Application, reproduced below.

Figure 2A shows terminal 6 prior to insertion into housing 4. Id. at 13. The
terminal includes “projecting portions 62 that are to be held in the terminal
holding hole 44.” Id. The arrangement is intended “to provide a terminal
holding structure of a connector that can enhance the holding power to the
terminal press-fitted into the terminal holding hole, and enable the terminal
to be held stably.” Id. at 4.
Figure 3B, reproduced below, shows a close-up view of projecting
portions 62.
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

3

Figure 3B is a detail view of the projecting portions 62.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A terminal holding structure of a connector comprising:
at least a pair of projecting portions, projecting to both sides in a
direction orthogonal to a press-fitting direction, that is formed on an
outer surface of a region of a straight portion of a terminal, the region
corresponding to a terminal holding hole that is formed on a terminal
holding wall of a housing made of resin and holds the terminal by
press-fitting the straight portion of the terminal; and

dents that are formed at distal end portions of the projecting
portions projecting to both sides, a cross-section orthogonal to the
straight portion being wedge-shaped, and a dimension between bottom
portions thereof being made larger than a dimension of the terminal
holding hole at a position into which the projecting portions projecting
to both sides are press-fitted, wherein

the projecting portion includes opposing surfaces that are
formed in a smooth convex curve and face each other interposing
the dent, and
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

4

the press-fitting direction is a direction in which the straight
portion of the terminal is press fit into the terminal holding hole.

Appeal Brief (filed July 10, 2018) (“Appeal Br.”) 13 (Claims App’x)
(emphasis added).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verhoeven (US 4,469,394; issued
Sept. 4, 1984). Final Action (dated Jan. 11, 2018) (“Final Act.”) 2; Advisory
Action (dated April 20, 2018) (“Adv. Act.”).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by
Verhoeven. Id. In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that
Verhoeven teaches “dents between pair of projecting portions 10, 10', 12, 12'
that are formed at distal end portions of the projecting portions.” Id. at 2
(citing Verhoeven, Figs. 1–14).
Figure 3 of Verhoeven is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

5
Figure 3 shows a section view of a press-fit electrical terminal as taught by
Verhoeven. Verhoeven 2:24–29. Figure 3 shows “fins 10, 10', 12, 12'” each
having an “outer edge 18.” Id. at 3:2–3, 3:9–11.
Claim 1 requires “dents that are formed at distal end portions of the
projecting portions.” Appellant argues that the “spaces between parallel fins
fail to disclose ‘dents that are formed at distal end portions.’” Appeal Br.
9. Verhoeven teaches a “generally H-shaped press-fit zone . . . with the
central web 2 being indented with a series of corrugations 4.” Verhoeven
2:64–66. Appellant fails to offer adequate explanation of why the
corrugations 4 of Verhoeven do not fall within the ambit of the term “dents
that are formed at distal end portions.” Indeed, Appellant does not offer
proposed constructions of the term “dents” or “distal end portions.” See id.
at 9. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“It is not the function of this [body] to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for non-obvious distinctions over
the prior art.”).
Claim 1 further requires “the projecting portion includes opposing
surfaces that are formed in a smooth convex curve and face each other
interposing the dent.” Appellant argues that “the only ‘smooth convex
surfaces’ included on the fins 10, 10’, 12, and 12[’] are formed on the outer
sides of the fins.” Id. at 9. Accordingly, Appellant argues, the convex
surfaces of Verhoeven do not “face each other” as required by the claim. Id.
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

6
In an Advisory Action issued subsequent to the Final Rejection, the
Examiner determined that such argument was not persuasive because “the
smooth convex curve[s] of the projecting portion are not positively claimed
directly face toward each other interposing the dent.” Adv. Act. 2. In the
Answer, the Examiner determined that “Verhoeven, Fig. 3 clearly shows the
projecting portions 10, 12 include opposing surfaces that are formed in a
smooth convex curve 18 and face each other interposing the dent 4.”
Answer 3 (Sept. 25, 2018) (“Ans.”). That is, the Examiner construes the
“face each other” recitation of claim 1 to require only that the opposing
surfaces (not the curved surfaces) of the projections face one another. We
reproduce the relevant limitation below for convenience:
the projecting portion includes opposing surfaces that are
formed in a smooth convex curve and face each other
interposing the dent.

Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner’s construction would not require that the “smooth
convex curves” face toward each other. In order to evaluate such
determination, we consider the proposed claim construction.
The limitation at issue requires “opposing surfaces that are formed in
a smooth convex curve.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App’x). That the (convex
curved) surfaces are “opposing” indicates that they face one another.
Further, Claim 1 requires that the dents are “wedge-shaped.” Id. An
embodiment having a wedge-shaped dent is discussed in the Specification as
follows:
as illustrated in FIG. 5A, on the straight portion 61, the
projecting portions 62 are formed. The projecting portion 62
has a dent 63 on the distal end portion of which the width in the
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

7
up-down direction of the cross-section orthogonal to the
straight portion 61 (cross-section in the press-fitting direction of
the terminal 6) narrows toward the center side from the outside
in the left-right direction of the straight portion 61, what is
called a wedge shape.

Spec. 15 (emphasis added). For context, Figure 5A is reproduced below.

Figure 5A is a cross-sectional view of the terminal showing projecting
portions 62 and dents 63. Spec. 8, 15. Thus, the “wedge-shaped” limitation
indicates that the curved surfaces face toward each other.
In view of the foregoing, we construe the limitation “the projecting
portion includes opposing surfaces that are formed in a smooth convex curve
and face each other interposing the dent” to require “opposing surfaces” that
are “formed in a smooth convex curve” where such convex curves “face
each other.” As Verhoeven does not teach such a feature, we determine that
it does not anticipate claim 1. As each other claim at issue depends from
Appeal 2019-000886
Application 15/238,801

8
claim 1, we determine that claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are not anticipated by
Verhoeven.

CONCLUSION

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6 § 102(a)(1),
Verhoeven 
1–3, 5, 6
Overall Outcome 1–3, 5, 6

REVERSED