Ex Parte Collins

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 9, 2005

10039015 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 9, 2005)

1 Application for patent filed January 2, 2002, entitled
"Coil Spring Extension Mechanism for a PC Card."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte PAUL S. COLLINS

Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,0151

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, DIXON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 10-17.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a mechanism for spring biasing an
extensible antenna in a personal computer (PC) card.
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 2 -
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A personal computer card comprising:
an extensible antenna;
a coil spring to push the antenna from a retracted
position to an extended position;
a track laterally displaced with respect to the coil
spring to guide the antenna as it is pushed to its extended
position; and
a catch that retains the antenna in the retracted
position in said track, said catch being spring biased.
THE REFERENCES
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ishida et al. (Ishida) 5,536,180 July 16, 1996
Johnson et al. (Johnson) 6,375,479 April 23, 2002
(filed August 31, 2000)
THE REJECTION
We refer to the final rejection entered December 2, 2003,
(pages referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer entered
April 7, 2004, (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of
the examiner's rejection, and to the brief received
February 23, 2004, (pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement
of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1, 2, and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Ishida. The
examiner finds that Johnson teaches the claimed subject matter
except for the catch being spring biased as recited in claim 1
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 3 -
and a track engaging member being a cantilevered leaf spring as
recited in claim 16 (FR2). The examiner finds that Ishida
teaches a catch being spring biased by the cantilevered leaf
spring 28 and concludes that it would have been obvious for the
catch in Johnson to be spring biased by a cantilevered leaf
spring in view of Ishida to prevent jamming (FR2). The examiner
concludes that the structure of Johnson as modified by Ishida
discloses the steps of claim 11 (FR3).
OPINION
Grouping of claims
The dependent claims are grouped to stand or fall together
with their respective independent claim (Br5).
Content of Johnson and Ishida
Johnson discloses a personal computer (PC) card having an
extensible antenna (e.g., antenna 80 on retractable connector 24
in Fig. 2, but the antenna can be on any embodiment), a coil
spring (e.g., compression spring 76 in Figs. 2-5 and 8 and
compression spring 92 in Figs. 3 and 8), and a track to guide the
antenna (Figs. 8 and 9; col. 11, lines 56-62; guide rails 90 in
Fig. 9 (96 in specification) and 98 on the retractable connector
24 fit within grooves in the communication card--the grooves in
which guide rails 96 and 98 move are considered to be the track).
Johnson discloses a cam system 102 having a cam follower 104
pivotable about an axis 108 which rides in a cam track 106 in the
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 4 -
communication card (Figs. 9 and 10; col. 11, line 66, to col. 12,
line 16). The cam follower 104 acts against the stop 118 to hold
retractable connector 24 in the retracted position (col. 12,
lines 37-41). The end of the cam follower 104 is considered to
be a "catch" as recited in claim 1. However, the cam follower in
Johnson is not described to be "spring biased," as recited in
claim 1, or "resiliently biased," as recited in claim 11, or a
"leaf spring," as recited in claim 16.
Ishida discloses a locking mechanism for a PC card having a
cantilevered spring 28, which may be a leaf spring (col. 3,
lines 63-67), which rides in a cam channel 58 around a cam
island 57 (col. 2, line 59, to col. 3, line 4). The cam locking
mechanism of Ishida is almost identical to Johnson except it
discloses that the cam follower is a spring.
Claims 1, 2, and 10
The disputed portion of claim 1 recites "a catch that
retains the antenna in the retracted position in said track, said
catch being spring biased" (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Ishida relates to a locking a button
in place, not locking an antenna or even the PC card, and,
therefore, the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed (Br5-6).
The examiner responds: (1) the catch 102 of Johnson is
spring biased, referring to column 12, lines 37-41 (EA4); (2) the
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 5 -
catch 102 of Johnson inherently possesses spring properties
(EA5); and (3) Ishida discloses a spring biased catch (EA5).
We do not agree with the examiner's reasons (1) and (2). As
to (1), the retractable connector 24, not the cam follower 104,
is spring biased by the compression spring 92. As to (2), we
agree that the cam follower inherently has spring properties
because of its thin cross section, but this does not inherently
meet the limitation of "biased" which requires some deflection.
However, we agree with the examiner's conclusion that one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the cam
follower 104 in Johnson a biased spring given the teaching in
Ishida that cam followers in locking mechanisms can be biased
springs. Ishida is clearly relevant to the problem of locking
mechanisms in the environment of PC cards although it is not
directed to locking a retractable antenna in a PC card. The cam
locking structure in Ishida would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art its use in similar situations, of which
Johnson is an example. We are not persuaded of any error in the
examiner's rejection. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 10 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 6 -
Claims 11-15
The disputed portion of claim 11 recites "providing a
resiliently biased follower to ride in said track and to control
the position of said antenna as it moves between retracted and
extended positions" (emphasis added).
Appellant's specification describes that the catch end 36a
moves in a "groove" 44 in the edge of the traveler (spec. at 6)
whereas the traveler 20 is described to have a U-shaped housing
30 with a cantilevered, L-shaped resilient arm 30 on each side of
a "track" 28 (spec. at 5). We interpret the claimed "track" to
actually refer to the described "groove." Compare claim 1 where
the claimed "track" refers to the disclosed "track." The
limitation that the "resiliently based follower" acts to "control
the position of said antenna as it moves between retracted and
extended position" seems misdescriptive inasmuch as the follower
("catch") only retains the antenna in the retracted position and
does not appear to "control the position of said antenna as it
moves between retracted and extended position" (emphasis added).
The cam follower 104 in Johnson corresponds to the
"follower" in claim 11, but it is not disclosed as being
"resiliently biased." We agree with the examiner that one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the cam
follower 104 in Johnson "resiliently biased" given the teaching
in Ishida that cam followers in locking mechanisms can be spring
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 7 -
biased. Appellant's argument that the spring element 28 in
Ishida does not control the position of the antenna as it rides
in the track, but locks the position of the button is not
persuasive for the reason stated in connection with claim 1. The
rejection of claims 11-15 is affirmed.
Claims 16 and 17
The disputed portion of claim 16 recites "a track engaging
element, said element laterally spaced with respect to the coil
spring to enable the antenna to be guided as it is pushed to its
extended position, said track engaging element being a
cantilevered leaf spring" (emphasis added).
Appellant argues (Br6):
The so-called track engaging element in Ishida does not
enable the antenna to be guided as it is pushed to the
extended position. The element in Ishida simply locks the
button or unlocks the button, but has no guiding function.
In other words, the card is in no way guided by an track
engaging element.
The examiner notes that Ishida states that "the follower
end 30 of the line spring 28 slidably engages with the cam
channel 58" (emphasis added) (col. 4, lines 66-67) and operates
similarly to the disclosed cam mechanism and Johnson (EA5). The
examiner states (EA5):
The track engaging element (28) guides movement of the
ejector button section 20 of the ejector (the lower part of
Fig. 9 and col. 5, lines 15-17). To lock or unlock the
button Ishida's track engaging element (28) guides the
ejector button section 20 to the specified fixed positions.
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 8 -
The problem is that the claim limitation is misdescriptive
of the described invention. As discussed in connection with
claim 11, we interpret the claimed "track" to actually refer to
the described "groove" 44. That must be the case here because
the limitation recites "said track engaging element being a
cantilevered leaf spring," whereas the disclosed track engaging
elements, L-shaped resilient arms 30 on each side of the track 28
(spec. at 5, lines 17-21), are not leaf springs. The claim
limitation is misdescriptive because the end 36a of the catch 36,
the "track engaging element," does not "enable the antenna to be
guided as it is pushed to its extended position." Guiding of the
antenna is performed as the U-shaped housing 30 is guided by the
track (spec. at 5, lines 19-21). In addition, claim 16 is
misdescriptive because it is directed to a "traveler" in the
preamble, and the coil spring and track engaging element are not
part of the traveler. We leave it to appellant and the examiner
to fix these problems.
Nevertheless, we affirm the rejection because the
combination of Johnson and Ishida teaches as much as disclosed.
The cam follower 104 corresponds to the "track engaging element"
in claim 16, except that it is not a "cantilevered leaf spring."
We agree with the examiner that one skilled in the art would have
been motivated to make the cam follower 104 in Johnson as a
"cantilevered leaf spring" given the teaching in Ishida that cam
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 9 -
followers in locking mechanisms can be cantilevered leaf springs.
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 10-17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a). See 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0832
Application 10/039,015
- 10 -
Timothy N. Trop
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
STE 100
8554 KATY FWY
HOUSTON, TX 77024-1805