Ex Parte Goodman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11482398 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GLENN GOODMAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-16, 20, 21, and 27-29 (Final Action 2-15).1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Claims 9-10 have been canceled, and claims 5, 8, 17-19, 22-26, and 30
have been withdrawn.
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary independent claim 1 covers a resilient electrical
interconnecting component and is reproduced below with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. An intercoupling component used to couple an array of
electrical connection regions disposed on a first substrate to an array
of electrical connection regions disposed on a second substrate, the
intercoupling component comprising:
an insulative support member including an array of holes
extending therethrough, the array of holes located in a pattern
corresponding to the array of electrical connection regions on the first
substrate; and
a plurality of terminals, each terminal including:
a socket including a socket body extending from a socket head,
the socket defining a socket cavity within the socket body;
a pin including a pin body extending from a pin head, the pin
head press fit within one of the array of holes and contacting the
insulative member, the pin body at least partially received within the
socket cavity; and
a resilient member configured to bias the socket head away
from the pin head.
Rejection
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-16, 20, 21, and 27-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 6,313,530
B1) and Kosmala (US 6,769,919 B2) (Ans. 6-9).
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

3
Issue
Has the Examiner erred under § 103 in rejecting claim 1 by
concluding that in combination Murphy and Kosmala teach or suggest
socket and pin bodies arranged with resilient members to provide electrical
connecting components having pin heads that are press-fit into insulating
material holes? (See App. Br. 12-14.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 was reviewed in
light of Appellant’s arguments that are found unavailing.
This appeal focuses on whether the cited references teach or suggest a
resilient electrical interconnecting component having a pin head that is
press-fit into an insulating material hole. (See claim 1 emphasized
limitations reproduced supra.) The Examiner finds Murphy discloses socket
terminal 18 that is press-fit into a hole 20 in insulating member 16 (Ans. 7;
see Murphy Fig. 2, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 3). The Examiner further finds
“Kosmala discloses a connector including . . . a socket 50 . . . ; a pin 52
including a pin body extending from a pin head, the pin head positioned
within one of the array of holes and contacting the insulative member . . .”
(Ans. 7; see Kosmala Figs. 3 and 4). Kosmala’s Figs. 3 and 4 show pins 52
with pin heads positioned below sockets 50 at the base of Kosmala
connectors.
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

4
Appellant asserts that “neither Murphy or Kosmala disclose an
intercoupling component in which the terminal assembly includes a pin head
that is press fit within one of the array of holes, as recited in claim 1” (App.
Br. 12). Appellant, in particular, argues that “[i]n . . . Kosmala, neither the
pin 52 nor socket 50 are press-fit within the insulative member 44 which
supports them. Rather, the pin 52 and socket 50 float freely within the
respective upper and lower passage portions 70, 72 formed within the
insulative member 44” (App. Br. 14). Additionally, “Appellant argues that
the head 54 of [the] pin of Murphy resides above the upper surface of the
insulative support member . . . the pin of Murphy is not press fit within the
insulative support member 16 [Murphy, Fig. 2] . . .” (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner responds:
The relevant structure (in Appellant’s invention, Murphy, and
Kosmala) that is press-fit is the base of the terminal, where the
terminal is to be soldered to the underlying circuit board. Regardless
of the structure of the terminal, what is taught in Murphy is that the
base of the terminal is held in the housing by press-fitting. (Murphy,
col. 4 lines 1-6).
(Ans. 12.) Appellant disagrees, and asserts that:
[T]he “base” of Murphy, which corresponds to the female socket 40,
is press fit within the insulative member. However, the female socket
40 of Murphy can not [sic] fairly be interpreted as a pin rather than a
socket, and does not include a pin body that is at least partially
received within the socket cavity of the counterpart portion of the
Murphy terminal 18.
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

5
(Reply Br. 9.)
Reviewing the record, we find (i) Murphy teaches a base end portion
of terminal socket 18 being press-fit into an insulating member 16 hole 20
(Murphy Fig. 2, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 3); and (ii) Kosmala teaches pin head
52 positioned below a socket 50 and within an insulating material hole 76
(Kosmala Figs. 3 and 4). Appellant does not appear to dispute these findings
of fact. Disputed is whether the Examiner erred in concluding the combined
references would suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan that a pin head
could be substituted for a socket head being press-fit into an insulating
material hole.
No convincing evidence of record has been found to support that such
a substitution would be beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan or
would provide any unexpected result beyond prior art teachings. In the
Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter section of the Appeal Brief,
Appellant does contend high density press-fit caused warping of insulating
material is avoided by Appellant’s “invention” because only a portion of a
hole is used for press-fitting (App. Br. 5-6). Such assertion is found
unavailing because (i) claim 1 does not recite any so restricting limitation for
partial press-fitting, and (ii) no supporting evidence for the argued beneficial
result, including citation to the Specification, has been found. In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot
take the place of evidence.”). The record also is found substantively silent
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

6
as to substituting a pin head for a socket head to solve any identified
problem or as being more than “an obvious matter of design choice within
the skill of the art.” In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975 (citations
omitted)); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(Obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”). Appellant’s contention that “Kosmala expressly teaches
away from a press fit configuration [Kosmala, col. 2, lines 48-58]” (App. Br.
14), is unavailing, because review of Kosmala fails to identify any
criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging teaching, including any
inherent teaching (see Reply Br. 9-10), regarding press-fitting.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 and also will
sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 11-16 that are not
separately argued.
Claim 20
Appellant relies on the arguments asserted for claim 1 to contend that
independent claim 20 also is patentable (App. Br. 17). The Examiner
responds that claim 20 “does not require a press-fit pin head” (Ans. 16).
Appellant acknowledges by silence that claim 20 does not require a press-fit
pin head (Reply Br. 10), which we concur in from our review. No other
Appeal 2009-010787
Application 11/482,398

7
arguments are submitted by Appellant for claim 20 or its dependent claims
regarding patentability.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 20 and also will
sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 21 and 27-29.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-16, 20, 21, and
27-29 is affirmed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED
rwk