Ex Parte Gleissner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2014

11885906 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ACHIM GLEISSNER and CHRISTOPH JEHLE
____________

Appeal 2011-012601
Application 11/885,906
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and N. WHITNEY WILSON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16-33. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6. An oral hearing was conducted on February 4, 2014.

Appeal 2011-012601
Application 11/885,906

2
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a plug-in socket including
a socket housing having a hermetically sealed volume, a first electrical
contact arranged in the housing, a second electrical contact arranged on the
housing, and a voltage converter integrated in the housing. Further details
can be derived from a review of appealed claim 16, which is illustrative and
reproduced below:
Claim 16: A plug-in socket for coupling to a corresponding
standard plug and for connection of an electrical terminal device to a
primary voltage, comprising:
a socket housing;
a first electrical contact arranged in the socket housing for coupling to
an electrical contact of the corresponding standard plug;
a voltage converter integrated in the socket housing and converting a
primary voltage into at least one secondary voltage for the electrical terminal
device, wherein the primary voltage and the at least one secondary voltage
are different, non-zero voltages; and
a second electrical contact arranged on the socket housing for
electrical contacting of the secondary voltage;
wherein the voltage converter is integrated in the socket housing so
that the external dimensions of the socket housing are substantially
predetermined by the dimensions of the corresponding standard plug; and
wherein a volume of the socket housing is hermetically sealed.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Webb et al. US 4,488,201 Dec. 11, 1984
Lee US 5,589,760 Dec. 31, 1996
Mayer et al. US 2001/0023153 A1 Sept. 20, 2001

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 16-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Webb in view of Lee and Mayer.
We reverse the stated rejection.
Appeal 2011-012601
Application 11/885,906

3
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate Lee’s voltage
converter into the socket housing of Webb in a manner to arrive at a device
that substantially corresponds to the plug-in socket device required by
rejected claim 16 but for the required hermetic sealing of a socket volume
(Ans. 3-4). Appellants do not focus their argument with respect to the
Examiner’s obviousness determination on this proposed modification of
Webb’s power entry module in view of Lee (see generally Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief).
Rather, Appellants maintain that the Examiner’s proposed
incorporation of hermetic sealing into such a proposed modified device of
Webb based on the additional teachings of Mayer constitutes reversible error
as Mayer’s teaching relates to a significantly different device and the
collective teachings of Webb and Mayer do not provide an apparent reason
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a further proposed
alteration of Webb’s device to arrive at the claimed subject matter (App. Br.
12-20; Reply Br. 6-13, 16-18). In this regard and as pointed out by
Appellants, Mayer discloses hermetic sealing of a position sensor circuit
within a housing to protect the position sensor circuit from impairment by
preventing contact with contaminants that are associated with environmental
conditions encountered by such a position sensor, such as the “difficult”
environmental conditions associated with a machine tool associated use of
the sensor (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6-13; Mayer ¶ 0004).
Furthermore, and as argued by Appellants, Webb discloses an A.C.
power entry module that provides for ready access through the housing to
switch fuses for the provided circuit board via positioning of the correct fuse
Appeal 2011-012601
Application 11/885,906

4
or fuses for operative protection depending on the voltage to be selected and
equipment being fused (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 11-13, 16-18; Webb, col. 1,
ll. 19-30, col. 2, ll. 2-38, col. 2, l. 62- col. 3, l. 16, col. 3, ll. 39-43).
In light of the above, the Examiner’s proposed hermetic sealing, as
taught by Mayer, for the proposed Lee-modified device of Web appears to
be contraindicated based on the ease of fuse switching sought by Webb.
Moreover, the Examiner’s asserted component protection rationale for the
proposed hermetic sealing modification of Webb’s power entry module
based on the disparate position sensor protection taught by Mayer lacks a
substantiated rationale on this appeal record (App. Br. 12-20; Reply Br. 6-
13, 16-18; Ans. 4, 9-14).
Rather, on this appeal record, the Examiner’s further proposed
hermetic sealing modification of the proposed Lee-modified Webb device
appears to be premised on an impermissible use of hindsight after review of
Appellants’ disclosure rather than on a supported reason to further modify
Webb based on the additional teachings of Mayer in combination therewith.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (The fact finder
must be aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be
cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”; citing Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (warning against a “temptation to
read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue”)). Rejections
based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
For the reasons discussed above with respect to the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 16, the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent
Appeal 2011-012601
Application 11/885,906

5
claims and the other commonly rejected independent claims 32 and 33,
which other rejected claims include the voltage converter and hermetic
sealing features, falls short by failing to present a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the combined teachings of Webb, Lee, and Mayer.
It follows that, on this appeal record, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc