Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

12074754 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
12/074,754 03/05/2008 Chun-Yi Chang 9250
25859 7590 07/31/2013
WEI TE CHUNG
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1650 MEMOREX DRIVE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
LEON, EDWIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHUN-YI CHANG
____________________

Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 (App. Br. 4). Claims 2 and 12 have been
canceled. Although the Notice of Appeal is silent regarding which claims
are appealed, and the Appeal Brief conflictingly states that pending claims 1,
3-11, and 13-17 are appealed (App. Br. 1) and claims 1, 3-6, 13-15, 20, and
21 are appealed (App. Br. 4), we determine claims 1, 3-11, and 13-17 to be
finally rejected and appealed. We note that claims 20 and 21 (referred to as
being appealed at App. Br. 4) do not exist and the copy of claims in the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 15-16) improperly
deletes claims 7-11, 16, and 17.
We confine our analysis to the claims argued and specifically
appealed, claims 1, 3-6, and 13-15. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478
(BPAI 2008) (precedential). Following our decision, the Examiner should
cancel the non-appealed claims, claims 7-11, 16, and 17. See id.; see also
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1215.03, Rev. 8, July
2010. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of (i) claims 1, 3, and 4 as being
anticipated by Bali, and (ii) claims 5, 6, and 13-15 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Bali and Kotler. We also affirm, pro forma, the
Examiner’s rejections of (i) claims 7-11 as being anticipated by Bali, and (ii)
claims 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bali and
Kotler based on Appellant’s failure to present any argument as to these
rejections.
Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754

3
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added,
reads as follows:
Claim 1 A large dimension electrical connector comprising:
a plurality of unit sections, wherein each of the unit sections has a
certain thickness;
each of said unit sections defining a plurality of edges; and
a plurality of flanges formed along said edges, respectively; wherein
the unit sections are formed an unitary structure via flanges of each of
said unit sections overlap and interconnect with another flanges of
neighboring sections; wherein
said flanges are alternately arranged at upper and lower levels along
said edges, respectively, so that the neighboring two flanges on neighboring
two edges of a same unit section are located at the upper and lower levels
along corresponding edges, respectively.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Bali (US 6,881,073 B2).1 Ans. 3-4.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5, 6, and 13-17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bali and Kotler (US
4,860,510).2 Ans. 5.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3 and 4, and Appellant relies
on the arguments presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 10). No arguments are
presented for claims 7-11. We select claim 1 as representative of the group
of claims 1, 3, 4.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 14 and 15, and Appellant
relies on the arguments presented for claims 13. No arguments are presented
Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754

4
Principal Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 3, and 4 as being
anticipated, and (ii) claims 5, 6, and 13-15 as being obvious, because Bali
fails to teach the flange limitations at issue in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(Ans. 6-7). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Independent claims 1 and 13 each recite a large dimension electrical
connector having a plurality of flanges alternately arranged at upper and
lower levels of the sides of units/unit sections. Claims 5 and 6 depend from
claim 1 and further recite post and hole features, as does claim 15 which
depends from claim 13. Appellant relies on the arguments presented for
claim 1 for patentability of claims 3-6 (App. Br. 10), and relies on the
arguments presented for claim 13 for patentability of claims 14 and 15
depending therefrom (App. Br. 10-11). Because (i) Appellant presents
similar arguments for claim 13 as presented for claim 1 regarding Bali, (ii)
both claims 1 and 13 contain similar features relating to the arrangement of
the flanges, and (iii) Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2-3)

for claims 16 and 17. We select claim 13 as representative of the group of
claims 13-15.
Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754

5
regarding Kotler’s method not being operatively combinable with Bali’s
method of connection are not persuasive,3 the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 4 and the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, and 13-15
stand or fall with our outcome for representative claim 1.
As to representative claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. Claim
1 recites flanges on different sides of interconnecting tiles of an electrical
connector. Claim 1 is silent as to the specific arrangement of the flanges as
relates to the sides of the tiles, and as the type of flanges (e.g., zigzag or
straight). As a result, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that the claims
do not require flanges to be on the same side or a same level or that all
flanges on a side being alternating on an upper/lower level.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
language found in representative claim 1, and whether or not (i) Bali
discloses zigzag type flanges, (ii) Appellant discloses straight type flanges,
and/or (iii) Bali’s flanges are on the same side or a same level and/or all
flanges on a side are alternating on an upper/lower level, is irrelevant to the
conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter actually recited in
representative claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bali.

3 Appellant’s argument that Bali uses a different method than Appellant to
connect tiles/units (App. Br. 13) is not persuasive because there are no
method claims present on appeal.

Appeal 2011-000011
Application 12/074,754

6
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5, 6, and 13-15 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bali
and Kotler.

DECISION
(1) The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-6, and 13-15 are
affirmed.
(2) The Examiner’s rejections of (i) claims 7-11 as being anticipated
by Bali, and (ii) claims 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Bali and Kotler are affirmed, pro forma, based on
Appellant’s failure to present any argument as to these rejections.

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

tkl