Ex Parte Carver

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 7, 2010

10767177 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jan. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte KEITH R. CARVER
________________

Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided: January 7, 2010
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

2
A. Introduction1
Keith R. Carver (“Carver”) timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the final rejection2 of claims 1-25 and 33-36.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an electrical and mechanical
connecting system for joining two electrical conduit assemblies. According
to the 177 Specification, typically one or more electrical cables are
electrically and mechanically terminated with a cable lug having a contact
plate. One cable is then coupled to the next by connecting the contact plates.
Prior art connectors are said to be often fixed to the plates, requiring
unwieldy rotation of the plates to secure the contact. Alternatively, if the
connectors are rotatable relative to the contact plates, the connectors of the
prior art are said to be also releasable and thus easily removed from the
plates and lost. The claimed connectors and terminals are said to overcome
these problems by providing connectors that comprise rotatably and non-
releasably secured securing members.
The claimed connecting systems comprise two specially designed
conductive connecting plates and a conductive securing member. The first
connecting plate is provided with an aperture through which the body of the

1 Application 10/767,177, Electrical Connector with Rotatable Fastener,
filed 30 January 2004. The specification is referred to as the
“177 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party in interest is
listed as Cableco Technologies Corporation. (Appeal Brief, filed
13 August 2007 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 Office action mailed 22 March 2007 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3 Claims 26-32 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

3
securing member is passed. The securing member has a generally
cylindrical body that passes through the aperture in the connecting plate and
a head that does not. To prevent accidental removal, the end of the body is
swaged (i.e., flared) after passing it through the aperture. The interior of the
cylinder is threaded to accept a threaded securing member projecting from
the second connecting plate. Thus, the first connector is like a hollow bolt,
threaded only in the hollow interior of the bolt, that is rotatably captured in
the first contact plate, and that can be tightened onto a threaded male
connector without rotating either contact plate.
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:4
A. Claims 1, 4, 15-18, and 33-36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Krause.5
B. Claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Krause and Kue.6
C. Claims 5, 6, and 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Krause and Bentrim.7
D. Claims 7-10, 13, 14, and 22-25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined
teachings of Krause and Rowls.8

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 13 December 2007. (“Ans.”).
5 Jens Krause, Cable Lug with a Defined Contact Surface, U.S. Patent
6,343,962 B2 (2002).
6 J.F. Kue, Fastener Module, U.S. Patent 5,975,821 (1999).
7 Brian G. Bentrim, Floating Captivated Wrenchable Nut, U.S. Patent
6,866,456 B2 (15 March 2005), based on an application filed 2 June 2003.
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

4
E. Claims 11 and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the teachings of
Krause.
Representative Claims 1, 16, and 33 are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix to the Principal Brief on Appeal. Claim 1 is annotated with
reference to the embodiment depicted in Figure 3, which is reproduced
below.

{Figure 3 is said to show an electrical connector}
We emphasize, as will become apparent in the Discussion, that the
annotation is intended only as a guide to orient the reader, as the claimed
structures are not limited to the structures shown in the Figures.
Briefly, a first electrical conducting cable assembly 21 ends in a first
conductive contact 41, which is provided with an aperture 43. The body
section 65 (not labeled here: see Figure 1, not reproduced here) of first
fastener 61 passes rotatably through aperture 43, with head section 63
resting on contact 41. Distal end 66 of fastener 61 is swaged, as shown, to
prevent withdrawal of the fastener through contact 41 and, as shown,

8 Garth A. Rowls and Elbert L. Johnson, Corrosion-Proof Battery Terminal
and Cable Connector Therefor, U.S. Patent 3,775,730 (1973).
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

5
optional spacer 81. Threaded passageway 68 of first fastener 61 extends to
distal end 66 to threadably receive second fastener 71, which extends from
second conductive contact plate 51 of second electrical assembly 31.
The dispositive issue with respect to each independent claim is
identified following the claim.
1. An electrical connector, comprising:
a first electrical conduit assembly [21] having
a first conductive contact [41] and
an aperture [43] in said first conductive contact [41];
a first fastener [61] rotatably received in said aperture [43],
said first fastener [61] having a head member [63] and a
body portion [65],
a threaded passageway [68] extending from said head
member [63] to a distal end [66] of said body
portion [65],
said distal end of said body portion being radially
outwardly swaged into a substantially
frustoconical configuration to prevent said first
fastener from being accidentally removed from
said aperture;
a second electrical conduit assembly [31] having a second
conductive contact [51]; and
a second fastener [71] extending outwardly from said second
conductive contact [53] and adapted to be threadably received
by said passageway [68] of said first fastener [61].
(Claims App., Br. 18; indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and bracketed
labels to Figures 1 and 3 added: see Spec. 6, ¶¶ [0031]-[0033].)
Carver contends, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as anticipated by Krause because “the annular flange of Krause . . .
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

6
does not define a threaded passageway . . . extending from the head portion
to the distal end of the body portion as claimed.” (Br. 6.) The Examiner’s
stance to the contrary (FR 3, ll. 5-6, 8, ll. 1-2; Ans. 10, ll. 2-6) not
withstanding, we hold that claim 1 does require threading to the distal end of
the body portion of the first fastener, and we therefore REVERSE the
rejection of claim 1. As the rejections of the claims dependent on claim 1 do
not cure this defect, those rejections are also REVERSED.
16. A terminal for an electrical conduit, comprising:
[a] a conductive contact having an aperture therein;
[b] a conductive securing member having
a support section and a first locking section;
[i] said conductive securing member having
a threaded through passageway adapted to
threadably receive another terminal;
[ii] said securing member support section being
rotatably received in said aperture in said conductive
contact,
[iii] said locking section being radially outwardly
swaged into a substantially frustoconical
configuration after said support section is received in
said aperture; and
[c] a second locking section associated with said
conductive contact to resist removal of said conductive
securing member from said conductive contact by
engaging said first locking section on said securing
member.
(Claims App., Br. 18; indentation, paragraphing, bracketed labels, and
emphasis added.)
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

7
Regarding claim 16, Carver argues, inter alia, that “Krause further
fails to disclose a securing member support section being rotatably received
in the aperture in the conductive contact.” (Id. at 7-8.) Thus, Carver urges
that limitation (b)(ii) of claim 16, as labeled supra, is not described by
Krause. As explained in detail post, we find that the head of the bolt
described by Krause, which meets the “securing member support section”
(see, e.g., FR 3, 4th para., l. 3) is not “rotatably received in the aperture of
the conductive contact.” Thus, the rejection of claim 16 must be
REVERSED. Because none of the rejections of claims dependent on
claim 16 cures this defect, those rejections must also be REVERSED.
33. An electrical connector, comprising:
a first electrical conduit assembly having
a first conductive contact and
a first aperture in said first conductive
contact:
a first fastener rotatably received in said first
aperture, said first fastener having
a head member and
a body portion, a part of said body portion
being radially outwardly swaged into a
substantially frustoconical configuration to
prevent said first fastener from being
accidentally removed from said first
aperture: and
a second electrical conduit assembly having
a second conductive contact. said second
conductive conduct being adapted to threadably
engage said first fastener.
(Claims App., Br. 22; indentation and paragraphing added.)
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

8
With respect to claim 33, Carver argues the Examiner erred in finding
that the annular flange of Krause is “not a body portion adapted to
threadedly engage a fastener and does not have a substantially frustoconical
shaped portion as claimed.” (Br. 9.) We hold that claim 33 does not require
the body portion of the first fastener to “threadedly engage” a second
conductive contact. We also find that the captivating portion of Krause’s
annular flange is “substantially frustoconical.” Accordingly, we find that
Carver has failed to prove harmful error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection of claim 33. However, claims 34
and 35, which depend from claim 33, require the same threading of the body
portion required by claim 1. For the same reasons, we therefore REVERSE
the rejection of claims 34 and 35. Claim 36 requires that a portion of the
body portion of the first fastener be threaded. As the Examiner has not
identified disclosure in Krause that supports a finding that the body portion
of the first fastener is threaded, we REVERSE the rejection of claim 36.
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

9
B. Findings of Fact
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Krause
1. Krause describes a cable lug 10 shown in Figure 2, reproduced below,
left, and in most relevant part in Figure 3, reproduced below, right:

{Figure 2 shows a cable lug; Figure 3 shows the captive nut}
2. Cable lug 10 comprises a cable receiving section 12, a contact
section 14 adapted to contact a counter surface to be connected to the cable,
and a captive nut 16. (Krause, col. 2, ll. 15-21.)
3. According to Krause, nut 16 “serves for forcing the contact section
against the counter surface by screwing the attachment nut onto a screw
bolt.” (Krause, col. 2, ll. 21-23.)
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

10
C. Discussion
As the Appellant, Carver bears the procedural burden of showing
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e expect that the Board's
anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with
specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory
explanations for such findings.”) (emphasis added). All arguments not
timely raised in the Brief on Appeal have been waived.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The first step in an anticipation analysis is to construe the claims
correctly. Gechter, 116 F.3d at 1457 ("Implicit in our review of the Board's
anticipation analysis is that the claim must first have been correctly
construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested limitation.").
To be anticipatory, a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently,
each and every claim limitation. E.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 1 requires that the first fastener have “a threaded passageway
extending from said head member to a distal end of said body portion.” This
plain language requires that the entire passage way through “to a distal end”
of the body portion be threaded. The Examiner has not directed our
attention to any disclosure in the 177 Specification that indicates that some
special meaning has been given to the term “distal end of said body portion,”
such that it means, for example, a point not at the distal end of the body
portion.
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

11
Figure 2 of Krause indicates the passage through the nut is threaded
(although Figure 3 does not show this feature). Moreover, attachment nut 16
is said to force “the contact section against the counter surface by screwing
the attachment nut onto a screw bolt.” (Krause, col. 2, ll. 21-22.) Thus, the
passage way through the head of nut 16 is indisputably threaded. But
threading in the wider section of the passage through nut 16 that begins
approximately at the level of contact with section 14—i.e., the “captivating
portion”—would not engage the threads of a screw bolt that could engage
the threads in the head of the nut. The Examiner has not directed our
attention to any credible evidence in Krause that indicates that the
captivating portion of nut 16, which corresponds to the “body section”
recited in claim 1, is threaded. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Krause is REVERSED.
The Examiner does not rely on any of the secondary references to
address the threading limitation. As none of the rejections for obviousness
make up the deficit of Krause as to the threading limitation, all rejections of
claims dependent on claim 1 must be REVERSED.
Claim 16 requires, inter alia, that “said securing member support
section be[] rotatably received in said aperture in said conductive contact.”
The plain language requires that the support section—not the body section—
be rotatably received in the aperture. The “support section,” as the name
indicates, is the portion of the conductive securing member 61 that supports
the member on the conductive contact 41. Thus, the support section
corresponds to head portion 63 shown in Figure 3, supra. (See also Spec. 6,
ll. 5-6, equating the terms “support section” and “head section.”) Although
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

12
it may be that Carver intended to require that that body section be rotatably
received in the aperture, we must address the claims before us. As our
reviewing court observed in a related context, “what the patentee
subjectively intended his claims to mean is largely irrelevant to the claim's
objective meaning and scope.” Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d
1272, 1379 (Fed Cir. 2000).
It is clear from the written description in Krause as well as from
Figure 2—and neither the Examiner nor Carver argue otherwise—that the
securing member support section, i.e., the main nut described by Krause, is
not rotatably received in the aperture formed in contact section 14.
Accordingly, the rejection for anticipation of claim 16 is REVERSED. As
none of the rejections of claims dependent on claim 16 based on the
teachings of Krause combined with either with Kue or Rowls cure this
deficiency, all such rejections are also REVERSED.
Claim 33 differs from claim 1 in that claim 33 does not require the
body portion to be threaded “to the distal end.” Thus, Carver’s principal
argument for patentability is based on an erroneous claim construction.
Claim 33 requires only that “the second conductive conduct [sic: contact]
be[] adapted to threadably engage said first fastener.” Thus, the first and
second fasteners need only “threadably engage” one another. The nut and
the threaded body described by Krause meet this limitation, as Krause
describes the nut as being screwed onto a screw bolt. We also find no merit
in Carver’s objections that the captivating surfaces of nut 16—the curved
“tails” that interlock with the aperture in contact section 14—are not
substantially frustoconical. The term “frustoconical” means “like the
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

13
frustum (base) of a cone.” The figures in the 177 Specification show
embodiments purportedly having “substantially frustoconically” swaged
distal ends 66 formed against both counter-bored (Figure 8) and countersunk
(Figures 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9) through-holes in spacers 81. Both swaged first
fasteners are wider at the swaged end and taper to the body portion that
passes through the through-hole. The flared portions of the Krause nut are
wider at the base and taper to the through-hole of the nut. Thus, the flared
portion of the Krause nut has the general tapered shape of the base of a cone.
Carver has not shown that the modifier “substantially,” which encompasses
some variation from a strictly linear conical shape, excludes the curvature of
the interlocking tails on the Krause nut.
Carver has not alleged any other harmful error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 33. Accordingly, we AFFIRM that rejection.
Claims 34 and 35 require that the body portion be threaded “to said
distal end of said body portion,” and claim 36 requires that a “portion of the
body portion” be threaded. As noted supra with respect to the corresponding
limitation in claim 1, Krause does not describe threading in the tail portion
of the nut that corresponds to the “body portion” of the nut recited in these
claims. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 34-36 is REVERSED.
It has not escaped our notice that Carver and the Examiner have
disputed a number of other limitations in the claims. Because we need not
resolve these issues to dispose of this appeal, anything we might say would
be purely advisory obiter dicta. In the present appeal, we decline to exercise
our discretion to comment on these other issues.
Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

14
D. Order
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Krause
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 4, 15-18, and 34-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Krause.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2, 3, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Krause and Kue.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Krause and
Bentrim.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7-10, 13, 14, and 22-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Krause and Rowls.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 11 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the teachings of Krause.
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

PL Initial:
sld

Appeal 2009-002775
Application 10/767,177

15
FLYNN THIEL BOUTELL & TANIS, P.C.
2026 RAMBLING ROAD
KALAMAZOO MI 49008-1631