Ex Parte COX et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

13076830 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/076,830 03/31/2011
173 7590 02/25/2016
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601
2000 NORTH M63
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RAYBURNL. COX
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.
SUB-01298-US-NP 4502
EXAMINER
GILMAN, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com
mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com
deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYBURN L. COX, BRIANT. ETZKORN, EUGENE P. KRAUSZ,
JUSTIN D. MCIVER, and RYAN K. ROTH1
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R.GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision2 rejecting claims 1-26, which are all of the claims pending in
the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and
134.
1 The Real Party in Interest is said to be Whirlpool Corporation. Appeal Brief filed
February 28, 2013 ("App. Br.") at 2.
2 Although the action appealed from was the Non-Final Action mailed November
21, 2012 ("Non-Final Act."), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and
134 because the claims have been twice presented and rejected. See Ex parte
Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994); see also the Examiner's Answer
mailed May 3, 2013 ("Ans.") at 3.
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
We Reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of the claims on appeal is directed to "a control housing
assembly" useful for, for example, automatic dishwashers. Spec. ,-i,-i 1 and 2.
Figures 7 A, 7B, and 7C illustrate such control housing assembly as shown below:
'l-{
Fig, 7A
Fig. 78
Fig. 7C
:1f~r~1 ~
+.--~~---'---.;_ __ _
~}Q
Figures 7 A, 7B, and 7C evince housing 62 defining an interior for receiving a
printed circuit board (not shown) provided with multiple edge connectors 74 which
are accessible to wiring connectors 80 through slots. Spec. ,-i,-i 23-33. Connector
brace 92 having one or more projections 96 is hingedly mounted to housing 62 for
the movement between an unlatched position and a latching position. Spec. ,-i 31.
The continued rotation of connector brace 92 to the latching position from the
unlatched position causes one or more specially placed projections 96 to properly
insert any improperly inserted wiring connector 80 into corresponding edge
connectors 7 4. Spee. ,-i,-i 2 and 3 1.
2
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1
and 18, 3 which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief:
1. A control housing assembly for operably storing a printed circuit
board having an edge along which are provided edge connectors to
which corresponding wiring connectors are connected to couple
electrical elements to the printed circuit board, the control housing
assembly comprising:
a housing, defining an interior for receiving the printed circuit
board, and having a slot through which the edge connectors are
accessible for connection with the wiring connectors; and
a connector brace hingedly mounted to the housing for
movement to a latching position where the connector brace overlies
the slot and retains properly inserted wiring connectors in a connected
relationship with corresponding edge connectors;
wherein the connector brace is physically configured such that
movement of the connector brace to the latching position will contact
any improperly inserted wiring connector and is sufficiently rigid to
apply a force to any improperly inserted wiring connector to properly
insert the improperly inserted wiring connector on to the
corresponding edge connector.
18. A control housing assembly for operably storing a printed circuit
board having an edge along which are provided edge connectors to
which corresponding wiring connectors are connected to couple
electrical components to the printed circuit board, the control housing
assembly comprising:
a housing, defining an interior for receiving the printed circuit
board, and having a slot through which the edge connectors are
accessible for connection with the wiring connectors; and
a connector brace movably mounted to the housing for
movement to a latching position where the connector brace overlies
3 Appellants only argue common limitations in independent claims 1 and 18, which
are also the broadest claims on this appeal. App. Br. 9-25. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we select claims 1 and 18 as representative and limit our
discussion to claims 1 and 18. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
the slot and retains properly inserted wiring connectors in a connected
relationship with corresponding edge connectors;
wherein the connector brace has at least one projection for at
least one of the wiring connectors and the connector brace and the at
least one projection are sufficiently rigid to apply a force to any
improperly inserted wiring connector to properly insert the
improperly inserted wiring connector on to the corresponding edge
connector as the connector brace is moved to the latching position.
App. Br. 20 and 22 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1-11and13-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Lakoski4 and Holden; 5 and
2. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures ofLakoski, Holden, and Yagi. 6 Non-Final Act. 2-6 and Ans. 3-6.
DISCUSSION
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Examiner primarily relies upon the combined teachings of Lakoski
and Holden. Lakoski discloses computer security equipment. Lakoski, col. 1, 11.
6-12. Figure 1 ofLakoski, the computer security equipment relied upon by the
Examiner as corresponding to the control housing assembly for operably storing a
printed circuit board recited in claims 1 and 18, is reproduced below:
4 US 4,898,009 issued to Lakoski et al. on February 6, 1990 ("Lakoski").
5 US 6,935,875 B 1 issued to Holden on August 30, 2005 ("Holden").
6 US 6,267 ,608 B 1 issued to Yagi on July 31, 2001 ("Yagi").
4
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
Fiq.l
Figure 1 illustrates security steel cover 30 having vent 32, cable passages 34, and
internal keeper catches 36 and 40, and computer 10 having housing 12 and back
panel 14 defining communication port opening 20 having ports 22, power cord and
keyboard ports 24, and internal fan vent 26. Lakoski, col. 4, 11. 11-55. Security
steel cover 30 is attached to computer 10 by truss 44 having lip 52 and truss 46
(this number not shown in Figure 1) having key-actuated lock plug 56 attached to
computer back panel 14, which are designed to engage with inten1al keeper catches
36 and 40 of security steel cover 30 to prevent tampering. Lakoski, col. 4, 11. 38-
55.
The Examiner finds that Lakoski discloses "a printed circuit board having an
edge ... provided [with] edge connectors ([ports] 22, 24)," and identifies computer
housing 12 [and back panel 14] as a housing "defining an interior for receiving the
printed circuit board, and having a slot through which the edge connectors are
accessible for connection with the wiring connectors"; and security cover 30 as a
connector brace "hingedly (with 36 and 44) mounted to the housing for movement
to a latching position where the connector brace overlies the slot and retains
properly inserted wiring connectors in a connected relationship with the
corresponding edge connectors." Non-Final Act. 2 and 4. In other words, the
5
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
Examiner finds Lakoski's computer security equipment as essentially
corresponding to the control housing assembly recited in claims 1 and 18, except
for the absence of the recited connector brace that is specifically designed to
"properly insert the improperly inserted wiring connector on to the corresponding
edge connector" upon moving the connector brace from an unlatched position to a
latching position. Id.
To remedy this deficiency,7 the Examiner, at pages 2-3 of the Non-Final
Action, first states that:
Since, [sic] one of basic principles of electrical connector design is
rational utilizing of available space, it would be unreasonable to locate
a brace in Lakoski et al in such way to keep a space between an end of
not completely inserted cable connector and the brace.
The Examiner also finds in reference to Holden that "it is recommended to
hold the cable connector being attached to the edge connector (Holden, col.
3, lines 56-60)." Id. at 3 (Emphasis added.)
The Examiner then concludes that "it \'1/ould have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose
the brace in Lakoski as taught by Holden et al, to prevent any disconnection
during an operation." Id.
However, as correctly explained by Appellants, the Examiner does not
demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason
to modify Lakoski's security cover 30 (identified by the Examiner as a connector
7 The Examiner does not rely on Yagi to show a connector brace that is
specifically designed to "properly insert the improperly inserted wiring
connector on to the corresponding edge connector" upon moving the
connector brace to a latching position as required by claims 1 and 18. Non-
Final Act. 6.
6
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
brace) to provide either a projection or any other design that is specifically
designed or configured to "properly insert the improperly inserted wiring
connector on to the corresponding edge connector" upon moving the connector
brace from an unlatched position to a latching (closed) position, as required by
claims 1and18. App. Br. 10-19. First, the Examiner's statement that "it would
be unreasonable to locate a brace in Lakoski et al in such way to keep a space
between an end of not completely inserted cable connector and the brace" is not
supported by any credible evidence. See Non-Final Act. 3-5 and App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner does not identify any teaching in Lakoski or proffer any evidence to
support this statement. See Non-Final Act. 3-5. Nor does the Examiner's
statement take into account the purpose and the required features (e.g., vent 32 and
cable passages 34) of Lakoski's security cover. Id.
Secondly, the Examiner does not demonstrate that Holden teaches or would
have suggested employing a projection or any other design that is specifically
configured to "properly insert the improperly inserted wiring connector on to the
corresponding edge connector" upon moving the connector brace from an
unlatched position to a latching position, as required by claims 1 and 18, on its
universal computer cable connector protector cover or Lakoski's security cover for
a computer. See, e.g., App. Br. 18-19. In particular, the portion of Holden relied
upon by the Examiner (column 3, lines 56-63) discloses, in reference to Figure 10,
that:
Once the cable is attached to the computer, the access door is rotated
to a closed position and thumbscrew 34 is tightened to hold the access
door 13 in such closed position. In this embodiment, a pad may be
provided in the access door 13 to hold the cable connector C to the
base 15. The radius of the portion of access door 13 wherein
thumbscrew 34 penetrates can rest against cable connector C to keep
it in place.
7
Appeal2013-008698
Application 13/076,830
Although Holden mentions using a pad and/or a thumbscrew to "hold" a cable
connector in place once the cable connector is inserted, it does not mention
configuring or designing the pad and/or thumbscrew such that they are able to
perform the function recited in claims 1 and 18 upon moving its access door from
an unlatched position to a latching position, i.e., "properly insert the improperly
inserted wiring connector on to the corresponding edge connector" as required by
claims 1 and 18.
Under the above circumstances, we concur with Appellants that the
Examiner's proposed combination of Lakoski and Holden would not have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the control housing assembly recited in
claims 1-26 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8