Ex Parte Gross

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2015

12156356 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RUSSELL FREDERICK GROSS III
____________________

Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Russell Fredrick Gross III (Appellant)1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 7, and 8.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is ITT Manufacturing
Enterprises, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Notice of Appeal of September 9, 2012 includes claims 2 and 4 in the
listing of claims appealed, however Appellant states that Appellant does not
appeal the rejection of claims 2 and 4. Appeal Br. 2. As such, Appellant has
waived any arguments rebutting the rejections of the Examiner of the claims
not argued in the briefs. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F. 3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (“[T]he applicant can waive appeal of a ground of rejection . . . .”).
Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an anti-rotation coupling for a connector.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A connector that has an axis (30) that extends in forward
and rearward directions, a barrel (12), a coupling nut (14) that
lies around said barrel and is rotatable about said axis relative to
said barrel, and a mechanism (20) that resists free rotation of
said coupling nut around said barrel, wherein:
said coupling nut has a rear end that forms a circular
recess (32) therein and a ring of rearward-projecting nut teeth
(34) in said recess;
said mechanism includes a clicker ring (22) that has at
least one axially extending slot (40), said barrel (12) extending
through said nut and said barrel having a projection (42) that
lies in said clicker ring slot to prevent said clicker ring from
turning relative to said barrel, said clicker ring having a
plurality of forward projecting clicker teeth (36) that repeatedly
engage and disengage said nut teeth when said coupling nut is
turned relative to said clicker ring.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson (US 6,123,563, issued Sept. 26, 2000) and
Fowler (US 6,086,400, issued July 11, 2000). Ans. 4.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses an anti-rotation coupling
for a connector that includes most of the claimed subject matter of
independent claim 1. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds that “[Johnson] fail[s]
to disclose a connector wherein the clicker ring has an axially extending slot,
Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
3
and the barrel having a projection that lies in the clicker ring slot to prevent
the clicker ring from turning relative to the barrel.” Id. at 5. The Examiner,
relying on Figure 3 of Fowler, further finds that Fowler discloses the missing
element. Id.
Appellant argues that neither Johnson nor Fowler disclose “two rings
engaged, where one ring of teeth lies in a groove.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
also argues, with respect to claim 1, that Johnson “does not provide a spring
to bias his spring ring 23 (Fig. 2) against teeth on his nut 12, but uses the
spring beams 24 (Fig. 6) on his spring ring 23.” Id. at 3. We find these
arguments unpersuasive, as they argue features not present in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a “coupling nut [that] has a rear end that forms a circular
recess (32) therein and a ring of rearward-projecting nut teeth (34) in said
recess.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. That is, claim 1 requires a recess, not a
groove as argued by Appellant. The Examiner correctly finds that Johnson
discloses the recited recess. See Ans. 5; see also Johnson, Fig. 7 (depicting a
recess formed by flange 11). Further, claim 1 does not require a spring to
bias the clicker ring. See Appeal Br., Claims App. 1; cf. id. at 2 (presenting
claim 7, which does recite a spring to bias the clicker ring).
Appellant further argues that Johnson’s “tooth ring 27 is prevented
from rotating by a projection 28 on the tooth ring that engages a notch 29 . . .
on the nut 12. This is different from applicant who resists but does not
prevent his clicker ring from rotating.” Appeal Br. 3. That is, Appellant
apparently argues that the combination of Johnson and Fowler fail to
disclose “a mechanism (20) that resists free rotation of said coupling nut
around said barrel,” as recited in claim 1, but instead discloses a mechanism
that prevents free rotation. See Appeal Br., Claims App. 1 (emphasis
added). We find this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly
Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
4
construes this claim term to encompass a mechanism that prevents the
clicker ring from rotating. See Ans. 4–5; see also In re Abbott Diabetes
Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[C]laims under
examination before the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”). That
is, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, a mechanism that
resists free rotation includes a mechanism that prevents free rotation.
Appellant also argues that “Johnson does not provide a projection on
his barrel 8 . . . to directly engage his tooth ring 28.” Appeal Br. 3. We find
this argument unpersuasive as it attacks Johnson individually rather than
addressing the Examiner’s combination. See Ans. 10; see also In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures). The
Examiner recognizes that Johnson fails to disclose this claim element and,
instead, relies on Fowler for this teaching. See Ans. 5, 10.
Appellant argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that “Johnson’s
Fig[ure] 6 shows that his nut teeth 22 face upward . . . and his clicker teeth
26 also face upward in [Johnson’s] Fig[ure] 4.” Reply Br. 1. Appellant
concludes that “Johnson’s projection 28 . . . engages a slot 29 . . . in his
coupling nut 12, but does not engage his nut tooth 22 . . . .” Id. We find this
argument unpersuasive. As Johnson discloses:
Spring ring 23 includes, in addition to rearwardly facing
protrusion 22, a plurality of forwardly extending spring tines or
beams 24, as shown in FIG. 4. Spring beams 24 preferably
include angled sections 25 arranged to cooperate with
corresponding teeth 26 on tooth ring 27 to provide a ratcheting
effect, as described below, when tooth ring 27 is fitted over the
Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
5
plug connector shell, with the toothed front surface of the tooth
ring facing the rear surface of the spring ring.
Johnson, col. 5, ll. 46–53. That is, the angled sections 25 of ring 23
repeatedly engage and disengage the teeth 26 of the tooth ring 27, satisfying
the claim requirement that the “clicker ring hav[e] a plurality of forward
projecting clicker teeth (36) that repeatedly engage and disengage said nut
teeth when said coupling nut is turned relative to said clicker ring.” See
Appeal Br. 1, Claims App.3
For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Fowler.

Claim 7
Independent claim 7 recites, in part, “a spring (24) that biases said
clicker ring forward to keep its clicker teeth engaged with said nut teeth of
said coupling nut.” Appeal Br., Claims App. 2. The Examiner contends that
Johnson discloses that the “spring washer 32 biases clicker ring 27 into
engagement with coupling nut 12.” Ans. 6 (citing Johnson, Figs. 2–6).
Appellant argues that “Johnson does not use his ‘snap ring’ [item 32]
. . . as a means for biasing his ring 27 forward, but uses resilient spring
beams 24 . . . so he does not require a spring.” Appeal Br. 4 (internal
citations omitted). In response, the Examiner repeats the contention that
Johnson’s “spring washer 32” satisfies the “spring” claim element. Ans. 12.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Johnson discloses that
“snap ring 32” is “retained by a groove 18” to “entrap” the components of

3 We note that the Examiner’s detailed explanation of the rejection includes
a typographical error, which cites to part 22 instead of part 25 on spring ring
23.
Appeal 2012-010589
Application 12/156,356
6
the coupling nut. Johnson, col. 5, ll. 58–62; see also Reply Br. 1. The
Examiner has failed to establish a sound basis for the belief that the snap
ring of Johnson biases the clicker ring forward as required by claim 7.
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Johnson and Fowler. We further do not sustain the rejection of claim 8,
which depends from claim 7.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Fowler.
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson
and Fowler.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 and 4 are summarily sustained.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Ssc