Ex Parte Chapman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2019

14136104 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/136,104
13235 7590
Steven C. Tietsworth
3855 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
12/20/2013
01/16/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric M. Chapman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SEEK 09-258-201 2334
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARDT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2019 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):
tietsworth@cox.net
steven.tietsworth@seescan.com
susan.hammons@seescan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC M. CHAPMAN, MARKS. OLSSON,
NICHOLAS A. SMITH, and ALEXANDER L. WARREN
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and BETH Z.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 8, 9, and 11-23. Claims 4-7 and 10 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
CLAIMS
The claims are directed to a rotating contact assemblies for self-
leveling camera heads. Spec. ,-J 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter, with disputed elements italicized:
1. A camera head, comprising:
a cylindrical housing;
an imager disposed within the housing on a first element
movable relative to the housing;
a second element rotationally movable relative to the first
element, the second element including an electrical output
connection; and
a slip ring coupled between the first element and the
second element to provide an electrical connection between an
output of the imager and the electrical output connection,
wherein the slip ring comprises:
a cylindrical rotor assembly including a plurality of
electrical contacts disposed circumferentially thereon; and
a stator assembly disposed in flexion around the
cylindrical rotor assembly, the stator assembly including one or
more printed circuit board brush elements having electrical
contacts thereon, where the electrical contacts are electrical
circuit traces on the one or more printed circuit board brush
elements for providing electrical coupling to corresponding rotor
assembly electrical contacts and where the brush element
electrical contacts are held in contact with corresponding ones of
the one or more ring electrical contacts through the flexion of the
stator assembly.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Iwaki
Angerpointner
Olsson
us 4,384,225
US 2005/0012426 Al
US 2005/0275725 Al
2
May 17, 1983
Jan.20,2005
Dec. 15, 2005
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
Wrosch
Taruta
Kereth
Tokuhara
US 2008/0207814 A 1
US 2008/0290755 Al
US 2010/0132804 Al
US 2010/0233506 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Aug. 28, 2008
Nov. 27, 2008
June 3, 2010
Sept. 16, 2010
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 15, 18-19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsson1 and Angerpointner.
Claim 8 is rejected under§ 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Olsson, Angerpointner in view of Tokuhara.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olsson, Angerpointner, and Iwaki.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Olsson, Angerpointner, and Wrosch.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Olsson, Angerpointner, and Kereth.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Olsson, Angerpointner, and Taruta.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Olsson, Angerpointner and Volpert et al., A Fluxless Bonding Process
using AuSn or Indium for a Miniaturized Hermetic Package, Electronic
Components and Tech. Conf. 224-231 (2009) ("Volpert").
1 Appellants note that Olsson shares an inventor, Mark S. Olsson, with the
present application. App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants note that its new brushes are recited in claim 1 as "one or
more printed circuit board brush elements having electrical contacts thereon"
where "the electrical contacts are electrical circuit traces on the ... printed
circuit board brush elements." App. Br. 7. Appellants argue the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Olsson and Angerpointner. In particular, Appellants
argue that in their invention, "instead of a round wire brush as in
[Appellants' prior invention] Olsson, the new brush design is a printed
circuit board with traces on it, where the traces themselves provide the
electrical connection to corresponding conductors on a corresponding rotor."
Id.
4
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
Figure 29 of the Specification is reproduced below.
30-<'.-,
2810-~" 1 ---2f130 2820
'< ,-2{J$(} I / >'
Cffi[f~~r
2910···// ,, _________ / \'"·2920 284(}/
w10------- °"-ww
JO«,J
FIG. 29
Figure 29 illustrates a printed circuit board ("PCB") brush assembly
(e.g., 2810 and 2820) in an assembly with a corresponding rotor element
2930, with electrical traces on the PCB brushes (e.g., 2830 and 2840) in
contact with corresponding conductors 2910 on the rotor to transfer
electrical signals representing images or video between an imager of the
camera head and a connector to an associated push-cable. The PCB brushes
are retained in flexion to the brushes, with the flexion inherently provided
via the mechanical properties of the PCB substrate. Spec. ,i 111.
According to Appellants, the brush elements of Olsson are conductive
round cross-sectional wires. App. Br. 6. The Examiner does not dispute that
5
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
Olsson discloses wires and does not disclose a printed circuit board brush
element, but relies on Angerpointner to teach the claimed printed circuit
board brush element. Final Act. 3; Ans. 11-12. Appellants argue that
Angerpointner, like Olsson, also uses a wire brush element, and not a PCB
brush element as claimed. App. Br. 11. Angerpointner's Figure 5 is
reproduced below.
Ito FIG. 5
z.z 21.4 ... -./------------------------------------------:":_ :-
Figure 5 of Angerpointner shows that electrical contact is made
between a wire brush 21, not a PCB brush as claimed, and a rotating element
shown as a circle in the middle of Figure 5. See Angerpointner, Abstract,
,i,i 10, 33, 35. Based on the record, we agree with Appellants that
Angerpointner teaches a printed circuit board 1 (Angerpointner ,i 31 ), and a
separate contact wire 21 (Angerpointner ,i 33, 35), where the electrical
contacts are made by the wire and not by traces on the PCB, as required by
the claims. See Angerpointner ,i 10.
Thus, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we do not sustain the§ 103 rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2018-005905
Application 14/13 6,104
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejection of independent
claim 22, as well as the pending dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, and
23. Nor do we sustain the rejections of the remaining pending dependent
claims because the Examiner does not find the other cited references cure
the deficiencies of Olsson and Angerpointner discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 11-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7