Ex Parte Fork et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 13, 200910997931 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DAVID K. FORK, JURGEN DANIEL, GORDON T. JAGERSON, JR., and THOMAS H. DI STEFANO __________ Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: November 13, 2009 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-12, 15-19, and 21-23.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Claims 13, 14, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 2 We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrical interconnect device (claim 1). Appellants disclose that the invention is directed to latching springs for electrical interconnects (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An electrical interconnect device comprising: a spring having a base end and a tip extending from the base end, wherein the tip has an opening defining at least two tines; and a stop and a pinch point further defining the opening in the spring, wherein the at least two tines are free to move in a direction about perpendicular to a plane of the at least two tines. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Krivec US 5,662,504 Sept. 2, 1997 Muzslay US 6,261,134 B1 Jul. 17, 2001 Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-7, 10-12, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Krivec. 2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krivec in view of Muzslay. ISSUES 1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Krivec teaches an electrical interconnect wherein “at least two tines are free to move in a direction about perpendicular to a plane of Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 3 the at least two tines” as recited in claim 1, 3, and 15? We decide this issue in the affirmative. 2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Krivec teaches a spring contact structure wherein “the end of each of the at least two tines [is] in contact with the mating contact while the center region of each of the at least two tines is in contact with mating contact” as recited in claim 12? We decide this issue in the affirmative. PRINCIPLES OF LAW The applicant bears the procedural burden of showing error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness”) (citation and internal quote omitted). FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF) 1. Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Krivec discloses a spring contact structure having two tines (29 and 30) (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that “[t]he two tines can move perpendicularly to the plane thereof to engage the contact structures (i.e., can move sideways in Figure 1 to slide over the heads of the contact structures 11, 12)” (Ans. 3). The Examiner further finds that “[L]ooking at Figure 7 of Krivec it is clear that moving tines 38 vertically (i.e., perpendicularly Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 4 to the plane of the tines) by one or two threads (the threads being the contact structure) would not cause damage and is clearly possible.” (Ans. 4). 2. Krivec discloses connectors (e.g., side terminal adapter 20) for battery booster cables which can be used with side terminal batteries (col. 1, ll. 5-7). 3. Krivec discloses that gripping plates 29 and 30 (i.e., tines according to the Examiner) of adapter 20 are “laterally resiliently deflectable to facilitate sliding the side terminal adapter onto a side terminal of a battery” (col. 2, ll. 16-19; See also, col. 3, ll. 58-61). Krivec discloses that the slot 34 between gripping plates 29 and 30 has two differently sized slots 36 and 37 for receiving differently sized terminals (col. 3, ll. 36-41). The slots 36 and 37 further contain prongs 38 and 39, which may be positioned in any non-planar direction, for retaining the adapter 20 in an engaged position on the battery terminal (col. 3, ll. 43-57; col. 5, ll. 16-20). 4. Krivec further states that “prongs 38 and 39 are bent in a manner sufficient to provide firm engagement and minimal slippage between the clipped terminal adapter 20 and the terminal 11 (12)” (col. 4, ll. 7- 10). 5. Regarding claim 12, the Examiner finds that “The tines are part of the spring contact structure 22 and thus the proximal ends of the tines are in contact with (joined to) the spring contact structure” (Ans. 3). The Examiner further states that “[t]he tines of Krivec are clearly in contact with (joined to) contact structure 20, and the center region of each tine is in contact with the mating contact (11 or 12)” (Ans. 4). Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 5 6. With regard to claim 12, the Specification indicates that Appellants’ electrical interconnect contacts a mating contact at the tip of interconnect (i.e., 3 and 4 in Figure 1) and at the center of interconnect (i.e., 1 and 2 or 5 and 6) (Spec. ¶ [0036]; Figs 1 and 2). 7. Krivec’s adapter 20 slides onto the terminal 11 such that the receiving portions 31 (i.e., ends) of the gripping plates 29 and 30 (i.e., tines) are in not in contact with the mating contact (Figures 1 and 2). ANALYSIS Issue (1): Claims 1, 3, and 5 Appellants argue that Krivec fails to teach that the two gripping plates 29 and 30 (i.e., tines) are free to move in a direction about perpendicular to a plane of the at least two tines (App. Br. 10-12). We agree. The Examiner appears to find that Krivec’s adapter 20 is capable (i.e., possible) of moving in a direction perpendicular to the two tines (FF 1). However, Krivec discloses that the prongs 38 and 39 are positioned to provide a firm engagement and minimize slippage between the adapter 20 and the terminal of the battery (FF 3). In other words, Krivec discloses that the adapter is not to move in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the gripping plates 29 and 30 (i.e., tines) such that the Examiner’s finding is contradicted by Krivec’s express teachings. Accordingly, Appellants have shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Krivec teaches the argued feature of claims 1, 3, and 5. Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 6 Issue (2): Claim 12 Appellants argue that Krivec does not teach a spring contact structure wherein the end of each of the tines contacts the mating contact. We agree. The Examiner appears to find that the ends of Krivec’s gripping plates 29 and 30 are indirectly in contact with the mating contact because they are part of the adapter 20 which contacts a terminal (11 or 12) (i.e., mating contact) at the center of the adapter (FF 5). However, when properly construed, the disputed claim 12 feature requires that the ends of the tines (i.e., the tips of the tines) contact the mating contact in addition to the center of the tines contact with mating contact. The Specification supports this claim construction (FF 6). Because we find no express or inherent teaching that ends (31) of Krivec’s gripping plates (29 and 30) (i.e., tines) contact a mating contact, Appellants have shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Krivec teaches the disputed claimed feature. We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, 15-19, and 21-23 over Krivec. Because the § 103 rejection over Krivec in view of Muzslay involves claims 8 and 9 that depend from 3, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the same reasons the § 102 of claim 3 is reversed. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. Appeal 2009-002204 Application 10/997,931 7 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) (2009). ORDER REVERSED cam OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC. P O BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation