Ex Parte Cochran et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 2004

09735895 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLIAM HUGH COCHRAN, WILLIAM PAUL HOVIS,
MARK DAVID PLUCINSKI
and GLENN WOOD SELLERS, JR.
____________
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WALTZ, KRATZ and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-15, 19-24, 35, and 39-44, which
are all of the claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to an electrical connector. A
printed circuit board arrangement and a computer system, each
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 2
including such a connector, are also claimed by appellants. The
electrical connector includes a housing with a slot formed
therein and a plurality of conductive contact bands arranged
within the slot. The contact bands include surfaces having
projecting members of a specified height. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1
and 15, which are reproduced below.
1. An electrical connector, comprising:
a housing having a slot formed therein; and
a plurality of conductive contact bands disposed within
said slot, each of said contact bands having a surface with
a roughness defined by a plurality of macroscopic
irregularities, each of said contact bands further having a
plurality of projections, said projections of each contact
band being electrically engageable, at a plurality of
different locations, with a conductive member when the
conductive member is fully inserted into the slot so as to
establish a plurality of electrical contact points between
each respective contact band and the conductive member fully
inserted into the slot;
wherein a width of each said contact band is defined by
a distance across the surface of the respective contact band
and between two opposing longitudinal edges of the
respective contact band; and wherein each said projection
has a peak-to-valley height that is between about 10% and
about 90% of the width wherein said electrical connector is
a card edge connector and, wherein said plurality of contact
bands includes a first set of contact bands arranged on one
side of the slot, and a second set of contact bands arranged
on an opposite side of the slot, each of said projections of
said contact bands of the first set projecting toward the
contact bands of the second set, and each of said
projections of said contact bands of the second set
projecting toward the contact bands of the first set;
wherein each said projecting member has a peak-to-valley
height of about .001 millimeters to about .99 millimeters.
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 3
15. A printed circuit board arrangement, comprising:
a first printed circuit board;
a card edge connector disposed on said first printed
circuit board, said card edge connector having a housing
with a slot formed therein, and having a plurality of
conductive bands disposed within the slot, each of said
conductive bands being an electrical communication with
circuitry of said first printed ciricuit board; and
a second printed circuit board having a plurality of
conductive contact pads disposed along an edge thereof, the
edge being insertable within the slot so that the contact
pads engage with respective conductive bands so as to
electrically couple the first printed circuit board to the
second printed circuit board, wherein each contact pad
engages with a respective one conductive band at a plurality
of different contact points;
wherein said plurality of conductive bands includes a
first set of contact bands arranged on one side of the slot,
and a second set of contact bands arranged on an opposite
side of the slot, each of said contact bands of the first
set having a surface facing the contact bands of the second
set, and each of each contact bands of the second set having
a surface facing the contact bands of the first set;
wherein each of the surfaces has a plurality of
projecting members arranged in a pattern for the electrical
engagement of each respective contact pad to each respective
conductive band at the plurality of different contact points
when the edge of the second printed circuit board is fully
inserted into slot; and
wherein each said projecting member has a peak-to
valley height of about .001 millimeters to about .99
millimeters.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Blaustein 2,876,320 Mar. 03, 1959
Gammel, Sr. (Gammel) 3,262,082 Jul. 19. 1966
Devir 4,877,992 Oct. 31, 1989
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 4
1 While the examiner rejects claims 15, 19-24, 35 and 39-44
separately from claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14, the same prior art is
relied upon. Thus, all of the pending claims stand rejected
under § 103(a) over Gammel, Blaustein and Devir.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-15, 19-24, 35 and 39-44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gammel in
view of Blaustein and Devir.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants
arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants proceed with this appeal while conceding that the
claims depending from independent claim 1 stand together
therewith. See page 5 of the brief. Moreover, appellants note
that independent claims 15 and 35 stand together and with the
claims depending therefrom either being acknowledged as standing
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 5
therewith or not being separately grouped. Consequently, we
select claims 1 and 15 as the representative claims on which we
shall decide this appeal.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14
Like the electrical connector called for in representative
claim 1, the examiner has determined that Gammel’s electrical
connector for a circuit board edge includes a housing (10) having
a slot (69). See, e.g., page 4 of the answer and figure 3 of
Gammel. A plurality of conductive contact bands (60) are
disposed within the slot of Gammel. The contact bands include a
plurality of projecting bumps (63, fig. 7). The examiner has
found that the projecting bumps of Gammel are electrically
engageable, at a plurality of different locations, with a
conductive member (circuit board) when the conductive member is
inserted into the slot. See, e.g., page 4 of the examiner’s
answer and figures 7-9 and column 3, lines 9-47 and column 4,
lines 36-50 of Gammel. Moreover, the contact bands (60) are
arranged on opposite sides of the slot of Gammel with the
projections (bumps) of a set of contacts on one side of the slot
projecting toward a set of the contact band projecting bumps on
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 6
2 We observe that appellants, in their specification, page
3, acknowledge that it is known that the degree of electrical
contact between a contact band and an associated contact pad of a
circuit board depends on the mating force at the contacts and
area (size) of contact. It is axiomatic that consideration of
whether or not appellants’ claims define patentable subject
matter over the prior art cited by the examiner must, of
necessity, include consideration of the admitted state of the art
found in appellants' specification.
the opposite side of the slot. See, e.g., figures 5-7 of Gammel
and the corresponding text in the patent specification.
Given the teachings of Gammel (column 3, lines 67-69)
concerning the provision of the contact bumps for the purpose of
providing electrical connection with an inserted printed circuit
board, it is our view that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a workable projection
height and size for each of the bumps of Gammel so as to arrive
at workable electrical contact properties for the bumps and, in
so doing, arrive at a projection (bump) height within the ranges,
as here claimed.2 See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (the determination of
workable or even optimum values for result effective variables
would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art);
See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA
1980). Significantly, appellants have not established any
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 7
3 We note that appellants’ original claim 1 and the
specification (page 6, lines 5-15), as filed, referred to
microscopic surface irregularities in addition to projections
(macroscopic irregularities), not both macroscopic irregularities
and projections, as now claimed. In the event of further
prosecution of the here claimed subject matter before the
examiner in this (or a continuing) application, the examiner
should determine whether representative claim 1 satisfies the
description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
criticality for the claimed aspect ratio (peak-to-valley height)
and projection heights. See, e.g., page 6, lines 13-20 of
appellants’ specification.
As for the macroscopic irregularities in the contact band
surface that are in addition to the projections, as specified in
representative claim 1, we note that the surface of the contact
band (60, fig. 7) of Gammel includes other bends (irregularities)
besides bumps (63). On this record, we determine that the
claimed macroscopic surface irregularities do not serve to
specify a patentably distinguishing structure over that suggested
by Gammel.3 On this record, we find that the teachings of Gammel
furnish sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, we need not further discuss the teachings of
the additional references applied by the examiner.
Appellants maintain that Gammel does not disclose or suggest
projecting member heights and a cleaning function for “surface
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 8
4 It is not clear why appellants link the separately claimed
projections and macroscopic irregularities in the arguments. In
the event of further prosecution of this subject matter, the
examiner should also explore whether or not claim 1 and the
claims depending thereon comply with the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 in that appellants may not be claiming what they
regard as their invention.
roughness macroscopic projections” (brief, page 7). We are not
persuaded by those arguments for the reasons stated above.
Moreover, we note that representative claim 1 does not call for a
cleaning function for either of the separately claimed
macroscopic irregularities or the projections as specified in
representative claim 1.4 Since we have found that the additional
references applied by the examiner are not necessary to render
the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious, we need not
address the additional arguments directed to those references set
forth in the briefs.
As a final point, we observe that no arguments asserting or
establishing unexpected results for the claimed subject matter
has been presented. Consequently, we sustain the examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14.
Claims 15, 19-24, 35 and 39-44
Representative claim 15 is drawn to an arrangement
comprising a first printed circuit board with a card edge
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 9
connector disposed thereon. The connector includes a housing
having a slot formed therein and a plurality of conductive bands
that communicate with circuity of the first circuit board being
disposed within the slot. The conductive bands are arranged so
that a first set of contact bands is located on one side of the
slot and a second set of contact bands is on an opposite side of
the slot with a surface of one set facing a surface of the other.
Each of those surfaces has a plurality of projecting members with
peak to valley heights of about .001 to about .99 millimeters.
In addition to our determinations above respecting Gammel,
we note that the examiner (answer, pages 5 and 6) has reasonably
found that Gammel would have taught or suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the electrical connector disclosed
therein is capable of connecting printed circuit boards as called
for in representative claim 15. Consequently, for the reasons
stated in the answer and above, we determine that the teachings
of Gammel would have rendered the subject matter of claim 15
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made.
Moreover, for the reasons stated above, appellants’
arguments concerning the height of the projections are not
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 10
persuasive. It follows that we shall also sustain the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 15, 19-24, 35 and 39-44.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 7-15,
19-24, 35 and 39-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being patentable
over Gammel in view of Blaustein and Devir is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PETER F. KRATZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PFK/sld
Appeal No. 2003-2154
Application No. 09/735,895
Page 12
LESILE J. PAYNE ATTORNEY
IBM CORPORATION-DEPARTMENT 917
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829