Ex Parte Chawgo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2009

11538130 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHAWN CHAWGO
____________

Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 23, 2009
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-22
(Final Office Action (“Final”), mailed Dec. 6, 2007).1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Claims 4 and 15 are also pending and stand objected to. (Final 2.)
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

2
We AFFIRM.

Independent claims 1 and 13 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal, and are reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Modified
Appeal Brief (“Br.”), filed Aug. 25, 2008:
1. A coaxial cable connector for connecting to a coaxial cable,
comprising:

a connector body having a first end and a second end;

a fastener interoperating with the first end of the body;

a compression ring mounted to an inside of the second end of
the body;

an electrically conductive threaded post having a first end and a
second end;

the threaded post consisting of a post portion and a mandrel
portion;

at least one helical thread on the first end of the post, wherein
the at least one thread assists in moving, with a twisting motion, the
post between a braided layer of a coaxial cable and a dielectric layer
of the coaxial cable;

the mandrel portion being adjacent the second end of the post;

an electrical insulator fitted inside the body axially adjacent the
mandrel portion of the post but not surrounding or inside any part of
the post portion; and

an electrically conductive pin part of which is fitted inside the
insulator;

Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

3
wherein the conductive pin includes a collet structure at one end
effective for receiving a center conductor of a coaxial cable.

13. A method of manufacturing a cable connector, comprising
the steps of:

forming a connector body having a first end and a second end;

forming a one-piece post and mandrel combination, consisting
of a post portion and a mandrel portion, from an electrically
conductive material, wherein the post portion includes a first end and
a second end;

forming at least one helical thread on a the post portion;

inserting the post portion into the body;

forming or attaching a fastener on or adjacent to and
interoperating with the first end of the body; and

mounting a compression ring to an inside of the second end of
the body;

fitting an electrical insulator inside the body axially adjacent the
mandrel portion of the combination; and

fitting an electrically conductive pin partly inside the insulator;

wherein the conductive pin includes a collet structure at one end
effective for receiving a center conductor of a coaxial cable.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence to establish
unpatentability (Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed Nov. 14, 2008, 3):
Morris 4,854,893 Aug. 8, 1989
Burris (‘272) 7,144,272 B1 Dec. 5, 2006
Burris (‘121) 7,179,121 B1 Feb. 20, 2007

Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

4
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection (App.
Br. 5):
1. claims 1, 10, 13, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris in view of Burris ‘272; and
2. claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris and Burris ‘272 as applied to claim 1
and further in view of Burris ‘121.
Appellant’s traversal of the Examiner’s rejections is based on claim
limitations common to both independent claims 1 and 13. Appellant does
not present separate arguments as to the dependent claims. (App. Br. 3.)
Accordingly, based on its dependency, each of claims 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 16, 17
and 19-22 stands or falls with claim 1 or claim 13.
The issues presented for our consideration are whether Appellant
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that:
1. Morris discloses a compression ring as claimed; and
2. the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the
post in Morris’ coaxial connector to include a helical thread as taught by
Burris ‘272.
For the reasons stated in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 7-11),
which we incorporate by reference into our decision, and the reasons
discussed below, we determine that Appellant has not shown reversible error
in the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
The first issue turns on whether the Examiner properly interpreted the
claim term “compression ring” as encompassing Morris’ ring 34.
A compression ring is illustrated in Figure 15 of Appellant’s
Specification, reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

5

Specification Figure 15 is a cross-sectional view of an N-female 50 ohm
connector assembly. (Spec. [027].) The connector 120 includes a body 122
having a compression ring 134 on one end. (Spec. [038].) “A clamp 128 is
forced by compression ring 134 onto a coaxial cable sheath (not shown)
when compression ring 134 is in the compressed position.” (Id.)
Figure 4 of Morris is reproduced below:

Morris Figure 4 is “a cross sectional view of the two parts of a two-part
coaxial cable connector in a disassembled state.” (Col. 2, ll. 49-50.)
Figure 5 of Morris is reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

6

Morris Figure 5 is “a cross sectional view of the two parts of a two-part
coaxial cable connector in an assembled state.” (Col. 2, ll. 52-53.)
Referring to Figures 4 and 5, above, Morris describes ring 34 as
bearing against (col. 3, ll. 19-20) “an O-ring 32 circumscribingly engag[ing]
the sheath of a cable inserted within rear nut body 12 to provide a weather
seal between housing 28 and the cable” (col. 3, ll. 16-19). Morris (col. 5, ll.
34-60) describes the operation of ring 34 as follows:
After dressed cable end 146 has been fed into rear nut
body 12, front nut body 14 is attached to the rear nut body. . . .
Upon further threaded engagement between rear nut body
12 and front nut body 14, several events occur simultaneously.
End 138, bearing against side wall 152 of collar 40, will result in
translatory movement of the collar toward ring 34, as depicted
by arrows 160, 162. Movement of the collar will produce
translatory movement of ferrule 36 via ramp 106. Movement of
the ferrule will produce translatory movement of ring 34 via
ramp 84. The movement of the ring is limited by shoulder 82.
Thereafter, as the collar continues to move toward the ring, as
depicted by arrows 160, 162, inclined ramps 84, 106 bear
against corresponding ends of ferrule 36 to radially compress
the ferrule, as depicted by arrows 164, 166.
(Emphasis added.)
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

7
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that “compression ring” is a term
of art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that “[t]here is no
compression ring . . . in Morris ‘893.” (App. Br. 5.) However, Appellant
does not provide a definition or other evidence to establish the meaning of
the term “compression ring.” (See generally, App. Br.) In the Reply Brief,
Appellant directs us to eight different patents in an effort to establish “the
interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.” (Reply Brief (“Rep.
Br.”), filed Dec. 3, 2008, 2-3.) According to Appellant, a review of these
patents
reveals that those skilled in the art use the words “compression
ring” to refer to a compression ring that works through axial
compression. Ferrule 34 of Morris does not work through axial
compression, but rather through radial compression, and would
not be considered to be a “compression ring” by those skilled in
the art.

(Rep. Br. 3.) Appellant relies, inter alia, on Burris ‘121. (See Rep. Br. 3,
reference numeral (5).)
The operation of the compression ring in Burris ‘121 is described in
U.S. Serial No. 11/012,507 (Burris ‘121, col. 7, ll. 9-12), which issued as
U.S. Patent No. 7,018,235 on Mar. 28, 2006 (“Burris ‘235”)2. Burris ‘235
(col. 11, ll. 42-65) describes the operation of a compression ring 30 having a
gripping ring 70 mounted in its inner surface (col. 11, ll. 31-34) as follows:
In use, the end 201 of a coaxial cable 200 is brought
together with the rear end of the connector 10, i.e. the rear end 32
of compression ring 30, such that the cable 200 enters the
longitudinal hole 38 of the compression ring 30, [and] passes
through the longitudinal hole 78 of the gripping ring 70. . . . The

2 A copy of Burris ‘235 is appended to the decision.
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

8
compression ring 30 and the tubular post 50 are then moved
axially together. . . . The compressive force generated by the first
and second members 301, 302 axially moves the front end 34 of
the compression ring 30 over the sleeve 21 of the hollow body
20, . . . thereby deforming the gripping ring 70 such that the front
and rear ends 72 , 74 of the gripping ring 70 are deflected
radially inwardly against the jacket 210 of the cable 200.
(Emphasis added.)
During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Generally,
terms in a patent claim are given their plain, ordinary, and accustomed
meaning to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. After identifying the
plain meaning of a disputed claim term, the court examines the written
description and the drawings to determine whether use of that term is
consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term.” Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v.
Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent
with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re
Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Prior art references may be
“indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term
means” and “can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by
those skilled in the art.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
We have interpreted the claim term “compression ring” in light of
Appellant’s arguments, taking into account the terminology used in the
related prior art, in addition to examining Appellant’s written description,
drawings, and claims. However we are not persuaded that one of ordinary
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

9
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term
“compression ring” as describing a particular structure that would exclude
Morris’ ring 34. Moreover, we are not convinced that ring 34 does not work
through axial compression in the same manner as, for example, the
compression ring described in Burris ‘121. Compare Morris (col. 5, ll. 34-
60), supra p. 6, with Burris ‘235 (col. 11, ll. 42-65), supra p. 7.
We turn now to the second issue raised by Appellant: whether the
Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the ordinary artisan would have
been motivated to modify the post in Morris’ coaxial connector to include a
helical thread as taught by Burris ‘272.
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
had a reasonable expectation of success in adding a helical thread to Morris’
post because the resultant post would no longer be able to act as a support
for the interior surface of the cable sheath. (App. Br. 5.) Appellant further
points out that because “the dielectric in Morris is removed, there is no need
for the post to have threads in order to screw into the dielectric.” (App. Br.
5.)
Morris is directed to a cable connector for a coaxial cable of the type
having “a solid conductor of approximately one eighth inch diameter
surrounded by a plastic or other non-rigid dielectric compound and encased
within an electrically conducting generally metallic sheath of approximately
one half inch diameter.” (Col. 1, ll. 13-18.) Morris identifies U.S. Patent
No. 4,583,811 as disclosing a known prior art connector for use with coaxial
cables of the aforementioned type. (Col. 1, ll. 27-29 and 48-50.) Morris
states that U.S. Patent No. 4,583,811 (issued to McMills on Apr. 22, 1986)
Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

10
“is directed to the construction of a connector for a braided cable.” (Col. 1,
ll. 48-50.)
According to U.S. Patent No. 4,583,811 (col. 1, ll. 26-44)3:
There are various types of CATV cables. . . . The first type of
cable (Type-I) includes a center conductor surrounded by a
dielectric, a rigid outer conductive wall defining a shielding
means surrounding the dielectric and a protective jacket
surrounding the outer wall. . . .
The second more flexible type of cable (Type-II) includes
a center conductor surrounded by a layer of dielectric material,
which is surrounded by an EMI foil shield, which is surrounded
by an electrically conducting braid (also for EMI shielding
purposes) and which is surrounded by a protective jacket. Quite
often there are multiple layers of foil and braid.

In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court counseled against “rigid and mandatory” application of the motivation
to combine test, explaining that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be
confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and
motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents.” Id. at 419.
Instead, the Supreme Court advised that “common sense”
would extend the use of customary knowledge in the
obviousness equation: “A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at [421].
Thus, the Supreme Court set aside any “rigid” application of the
TSM test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an
ingredient in that equation.

In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR).

3 A copy of U.S. Patent No. 4,583,811 is appended to the decision.

Appeal 2009-009329
Application 11/538,130

11
As indicated by the Examiner, Morris’ invention is directed to a
coaxial cable connector and the use thereof is not limited to the
specific coaxial cable described in connection with Morris’ Figure 5
embodiment, i.e., a “dressed cable end.” (See Ans. 7-8.) Rather, the
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section in Morris supports
the Examiner’s contention that Morris’ connector may be used with a
coaxial cable of the type used in Burris ‘272. (See citations from
Morris and U.S. Patent No. 4,583,811, supra, p. 9.) As further
indicated by the Examiner throughout the Answer (e.g., pp. 4, 6),
Burris ‘272 would have suggested to the ordinary artisan that Morris’
method of inserting a cable into the connector could be simplified,
depending on the type of cable utilized.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10, 13,
14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris in view of
Burris ‘272, and the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morris and Burris ‘272 as
applied to claim 1 and further in view of Burris ‘121.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

psb

PASTEL LAW FIRM
8 PERRY LANE
ITHACA, NY 14850