EATON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2020000613 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
15/364,408 11/30/2016 Martin Edward PLUTKO 16-CWD-875 3288
101730 7590 12/16/2020
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
EXAMINER
TALPALATSKI, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTIN EDWARD PLUTKO
____________

Appeal 2020-000613
Application 15/364,408
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Eaton Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000613
Application 15/364,408

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a solenoid apparatus mounted on a printed
circuit board. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and
reads as follows:
1. A combination comprising:
a solenoid apparatus comprising a solenoid and a frame,
the frame comprising a main portion and a lug, the solenoid
comprising a coil situated on the frame and a pair of electrical
connectors that are electrically connected with the coil, the pair
of electrical connectors being situated adjacent the frame and
protruding beyond an edge of the main portion, the lug
protruding from the edge and being situated adjacent but spaced
apart from an electrical connector of the pair of electrical
connectors; and
a printed circuit board having a number of conductive
elements and having an opening formed therein, the pair of
electrical connectors being electrically connected with at least a
portion of the number of conductive elements, the frame being
electrically disconnected from the number of conductive
elements, the lug being affixed to the printed circuit board
within the opening with an adhesive or other material and
being electrically disconnected from the electrical connector
and the printed circuit board.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a disputed
recitation).
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hrynewycz,2 Linkner,3 and Reuter.4

2 US 4,041,430, issued August 9, 1977 (“Hrynewycz”).
3 US 6,124,775, issued September 26, 2000 (“Linkner”).
4 US 5,845,672, issued December 8, 1998 (“Reuter”).
Appeal 2020-000613
Application 15/364,408

3
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced.
See Ex. parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions,
we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We affirm
the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 1
Relevant to Appellant’s argument on appeal, the Examiner finds
Hrynewycz discloses a framed solenoid and Linkner teaches attaching a
solenoid device to a circuit board. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner also finds
Linker teaches using adhesive “between structural components of a solenoid
device.” Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Reuter teaches “it is known to use a
lug (66) projecting from a frame of a similar [solenoid] device and the lug
being affixed to the circuit board within an opening.” Id. In light of the
foregoing disclosures, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a framed solenoid device, such as
that of Hrynewycz, to a printed circuit through use of a lug and adhesive, to
prevent movement between the solenoid and circuit board components. Id.
At issue in this case is whether a preponderance of the evidence
presented supports the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill would
Appeal 2020-000613
Application 15/364,408

4
have had a reason to apply adhesive to affix a lug projecting from a solenoid
device to a corresponding opening in a printed circuit board.
Appellant acknowledges Reuter teaches using a projecting lug to
position a solenoid device relative to a circuit board. Appeal Br. 3 (“Reuter
et al. states the purpose of its additional integral projection 66 . . . which
mates with an opening (67) in the circuit board (57) is to provide a means of
assuring that the spool assemblies 21 and 22 are assembled in the proper
positions.”) (internal quotes and emphasis omitted). Appellant argues,
however, Reuter does not teach affixing projection 66 to the circuit board.
Id.; Reply Br. 2–3. Particularly, Appellant contends, Reuter “merely shows
one structure being received within another structure for the purpose of
proper positioning and to avoid assembly mistakes . . ., not for the purpose
of affixing a structure to a printed circuit board.” Id. at 4.
Appellant’s argument is directed to Reuter alone, and does not address
the combined teachings of the prior art relied upon the Examiner. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Here, the Examiner finds Linkner
teaches attaching a solenoid device to a printed circuit board, and also
teaches using adhesives to connect solenoid components. Final Act. 4. The
foregoing evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reason to similarly use an adhesive to
connect a solenoid device to a circuit board. Reuter’s disclosure that
vibration and other movement of a solenoid relative to a printed circuit
board can negatively stress soldered connections (Reuter 1:41–65) further
supports the Examiner’s finding.
Appeal 2020-000613
Application 15/364,408

5
Appellant’s argument that Reuter does not individually teach adhesive
attachment of its positioning lug is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection based on the combined teachings of Hrynewycz,
Linkner, and Reuter. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 3
Appellant does not argue claim 3 apart from its dependence from
claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 3 for the reasons given above regarding claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3 103 Hrynewycz,
Linkner, Reuter
1, 3

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED