Ex Parte Fork et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 13, 2009

10997931 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2009)

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1 Claims 13, 14, and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.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