Ex Parte Govari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13178054 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/178,054 07/07/2011
25570 7590 09/20/2016
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P,C,
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 500
McLean, VA 22102
Assaf Govari
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.
BI05258USNP 7674
EXAMINER
HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3737
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
docketing@rmsc2.com
dbeltran@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASSAF GOV ARI, ANDRES CLAUDIO ALTMANN, and
Y ARON EPHRATH
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,0541
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 3-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates generally to
electrical connectors, and particularly to methods and systems for protecting
connectors from magnetic interference." Spec. 1, 11. 3---6.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bio sense Webster
(Israel) Ltd. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
CLAHvIS
Claims 1 and 3-18 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. An electrical connector, comprising:
a connector housing;
one or more connector terminals fitted within the
connector housing, which are connected to wiring extending
from the connector housing and are coupled to interconnect with
corresponding connector terminals in a mating connector; and
an active shielding circuit, which is mounted adjacent to
the connector terminals within the connector housing and is
configured to sense a first magnetic field in a vicinity of the
electrical connector and to generate, based on the sensed
magnetic field, a second magnetic field that reduces interference
induced in the wiring and the connector terminals by the first
magnetic field.
Br. 18.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-8, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Palli2 in view of Reiland3 and
Shattil.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Palli in view of Reiland, Shattil, and Shiizaki. 5
2 Palli et al., US 2009/0269943 Al, pub. Oct. 29, 2009.
3 Reiland, US 7 ,525,314 B 1, iss. Apr. 28, 2009.
4 Shattil, US 6,208,135 Bl, iss. Mar. 27, 2001.
5 Shiizaki et al., US 7,116,288 B2, iss. Oct. 3, 2006.
2
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
3. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Li6 in view of Palli, Reiland, and Shattil.
DISCUSSION
Palli in view of Heil and and Shattil
Claim 1
Appellants group independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims
3, 5-8, 12, and 14--17 together. See Br. 12-15. We select claim 1 as
representative of this group, and thus, claims 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14--17 stand
or fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Palli discloses an
electrical connector including an active shielding layer for protecting against
electromagnetic interference, but Palli does not "precisely describe an active
shielding circuit configured to sense a first magnetic field and generate a
second magnetic field for reducing said interference." Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner finds that the use of active shielding was well known in the art and
it would have been obvious to include sensing and generating circuitry for
active shielding based on the teachings of Reiland. Id. at 3. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Reiland discloses "sensors and Helmholtz coils for
detecting a first field and generating a second field in response to the first
field for compensating for the interference associated with the first field (col
4, ln 44 - col 5, ln 18; abstract)." Id. The Examiner further acknowledges
that the combined teachings of Palli and Reiland do not expressly disclose
providing the active shielding circuitry within the connector housing as
claimed, for which the Examiner relies on Shattil. Id. The Examiner
6 Li et al., US 2008/0287803 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008.
3
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
concludes that combining Palli, Reiland, and Shattil as claimed would have
been obvious "in order to efficiently compensate for unwanted EM or
magnetic interference during a medical procedure." Id. at 3--4.
Appellants raise three arguments with respect to the rejection of claim
1, which we find to be unpersuasive, as discussed below.
First, Appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner is improperly picking and
choosing features from the references without considering the combined
teachings as a whole." Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). In support of this
argument, Appellants assert that Shattil does not disclose that the second
magnetic field is created by components within the connector housing
because Shattil describes the creation of an external field generated by
Shattil's shielding circuit. Br. 12-13. Appellants also assert that Reiland
does not suggest generating a second magnetic field within the connector
housing, but the rejection itself does not rely on Reiland for this
teaching. Id.
Regarding Shattil, Appellants argue that Shattil' s use of the word
exterior several times in the portion cited by the Examiner "is indicative of
the drive coils and the generated magnetic flux being outside the area of
interest. Therefore Shattil does not teach generating a second magnetic field
within a connector housing." Br. 3. However, although Shattil appears to be
silent as to whether drive coil 70 is in the same housing as pickup coils 60
and 62, we find that the more likely interpretation of the description of an
external magnetic flux in the cited portion of Shattil refers only to the fact
that the drive coil is simply separate from the pickup coils, i.e. the magnetic
flux is generated external to the pickup coils and not necessarily to the
housing in which the pickup coils are disposed. Thus, we find that
4
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
Appellants' argument with respect to Shattil does not persuasively show any
error in the rejection. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the art as a
whole at least suggests and renders obvious putting the components of the
active shielding circuit within the connector housing, particularly in light of
Palli' s disclosure of providing shielding in the connector housing itself. See
Ans. 8; Advisory Act. 1.
Second, Appellants argue that Reiland teaches away because "Reiland
explicitly notes that the object of its invention was 'to compensate for
electromagnetic and, in particular, magnetic interference fields at the actual
'point of origin', without significantly influencing the wanted signal that is
present'. Reiland at Col. 2, line 21-24." Br. 14. Appellants argue that this
teaching would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art from
including a second magnetic field within the connector housing. Id. We
disagree because the Examiner applied Reiland only to show that it was
known to produce a second magnetic field in order to reduce interference
from a first magnetic field. Moreover, Appellants have not provided any
evidence that Reiland criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior
art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a
different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes,
discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed).
Third, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not provided any
factual support for the conclusion that the modified device would be
efficient, i.e. that it would efficiently compensate for unwanted interference,
as stated by the Examiner. Br. 14. We are not persuaded of error. We
understand the Examiner's conclusion to mean only that one of ordinary
5
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
skill in the art would have recognized from the prior art that providing an
active shielding circuit, as claimed, in Palli' s device was a known and
suitable alternative to the shielding Palli' s device already provides. Further,
we find that based on the art of record, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized this as a substitution of one known interference
compensation method for another that would produce predictable results.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5-8, 11, 12, and 14--17, which
fall with claim 1.
Claims 4 and 13
Appellants raise separate arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 4 and 13. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites "wherein
the connector terminals are arranged in a plane, and wherein the sense coil
and the generator coil are parallel to the plane." Br. 18. Claim 13 recites a
substantially similar limitation. Id. at 20.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the Examiner finds that Palli discloses "an
active shielding layer above the pins (connector terminals) ([0324 ]), which
the [E]xaminer interprets as describing circuitry for sensing and generating
magnetic fields for compensating for EM interference." Final Act. 4. The
Examiner also states that "it is respectfully noted that the layering disclosed
in Palli('943) disclose[s] an active shielding layer above the connector pins,
interpreted to thus describe a parallel relationship (as can be visualized in
figure 37)." Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner is interpreting the layer to mean
parallel to the plane of connectors and that there is no teaching that the layer
6
Appeal2014-009555
Application 13/178,054
is actually parallel to the plane of the connector terminals. Br. 15-16 (citing
Palli i-f 324). We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' argument.
Although Palli may not expressly disclose that the active shielding layer is in
a plane parallel to the connector pins, we find that Palli' s depiction of
connector terminals in two planes (Palli Fig. 37) and the description of a
layer configuration including an active shielding layer (id. at i-f 324) at least
suggests that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide
the claimed configuration of connectors and shielding components in
parallel planes.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claims 4 and 13, and thus, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.
Claims 9, 10, and 18
Appellants do not present separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 9, 10, and 18, except to assert that the art of record does
not cure the deficiencies argued above. Having found no deficiencies in the
rejections as discussed above, we sustain the rejections of claims 9, 10, and
18 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1
and 3-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7