Ex Parte Hashimoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 2009

10953820 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHINICHI HASHIMOTO
____________

Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 April 7, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 9, 11-13, and 17-20, the only claims pending (Br. 5).2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention is directed to an IC socket contact 1 solderable to a
substrate. The IC socket contact resides in a housing which detachably
holds an IC package. The IC package establishes electrical contact with an
end 11a of a resilient contact arm 11 of the IC socket contact. The other end
of the resilient contact arm has a terminal section 12 with a contact portion
12a solderable to the substrate. Between the two ends of the socket contact
is a connecting wall 13a that bends 180 degrees to a mounting section 13
having barbs 13b thereon. The mounting section is mountable to the
housing. (Fig. 1; Spec. 3:24 to 4:16).
Claim 9, illustrative of the invention, follows:
9. An integrated circuit (IC) socket contact comprising:
a resilient contact arm that comes into contact with a contact section
of an IC package;
a terminal section that is solderable to a substrate;
a connecting wall located at a lower end of the resilient contact arm;
a mounting section connected to a side wall of the connecting wall
between the contact arm and the terminal section through a 180 degree curve
section, the mounting section having barbs extending outward therefrom

2 Appellant’s most recent Brief (filed Aug. 17, 2007) (“Br.”) and the
Examiner’s Answer (filed Dec. 18, 2007) (“Ans.”) detail the respective
positions of the parties.
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

3
near top and bottom ends of the mounting section, at least one barb being
located above the connecting wall and at least one barb being located below
the connecting wall, and the mounting section being mountable to a housing
in which the IC package is placed; and
the terminal section being connected to a lower end of the connecting
wall without passing through the 180 degree curve section.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Walkup US 5,989,049 Nov. 23, 1999

The Examiner rejected:
Claims 9, 11-13 and 17-20 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Walkup.
ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments (Br. 6-9) focus on the location of the
connecting wall recited of claim 9. Hence, the issue on appeal is:
Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that Walkup
discloses “a connecting wall located at a lower end of the resilient contact
arm; a mounting section connected to a side wall of the connecting wall
between the contact arm and the terminal section . . . ; and the terminal
section being connected to a lower end of the connecting wall,” as recited in
claim 9?3 (Emphasis added).

3 Appellant only presents arguments for claim 9. Accordingly, pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), claim 9 represents the claims on appeal.
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

4
FINDING OF FACT (FF)
1. Walkup’s Figure 7A, as copied, marked-up, and rotated by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), is depicted below:

The Examiner employed the figure above to demonstrate how
Walkup’s Figure 7A, depicting Walkup’s socket contact, reads on the claims
(see Ans. 3-9).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation is
established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under the
principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

5
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues (Br. 12) that “the engaging section [of the mounting
section] 71 of Walkup is clearly connected to the side wall of the connecting
wall (as defined by the Examiner) at a location which is beyond the S-
shaped contacting portion 75 and not between the contacting portion 75 and
the soldering tail 76” (italicized emphasis added). The argument is not
persuasive because the hatched area identified by the Examiner as the
connecting wall appears to be between the area where the contact arm 75
and soldering terminal 73/76 meet. Therefore, the connecting wall is
between the contact arm 75 and the terminal section 73/76 as required by
claim 9, as the Examiner found (see Ans. 8). For example, current flowing
from the contact arm 75 to the solderable terminal section 73/76 would
traverse the hatched area therebetween (and would traverse a sidewall
perpendicular thereto in the current path).4
In any case, the Examiner appears to have reasonably identified the
hatched connecting wall at a lower end of the contact arm (Ans. 8, 9, FF 1).
Appellant does not argue, nor does the claim specify, that the connecting
wall must be part of the resilient contact arm. The hatched connecting wall
appears to be an approximate location as depicted by the Examiner - it could
be shifted slightly to the right of the S-shaped contact arm and/or it could be
somewhat smaller – so that the hatched connecting wall is clearly between
the contact arm and terminal section - as set forth in claim 9. Since the
metal portion under and including the planar hatched area constitutes a

4 This current flow example does not preclude a definition of “between”
based on location without regard to current flow.
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

6
connecting wall, the hatched planar portion itself constitutes a side wall of
the connecting wall.
Alternatively, a cross-section, perpendicular to the hatched region, of
either the curved section 72 or compliant section 73 where the two sections
meet near the right-hand end of the hatched section (i.e., the two sections
meet at the bend or taper discontinuity depicted between areas 73A or 73B
as depicted in Figure 7A of Walkup), constitutes another “side wall of the
connecting wall” (emphasis added). Here too, the connecting wall includes
the metal portion under and including the hatched area identified by the
Examiner (FF 1).
Therefore, Appellant’s argument (Br. 12, 13) that the soldering tail 76
constituting the terminal section of the claim is not connected to the lower
end of the hatched connecting wall also is not persuasive. The terminal
section 73/76 reasonably appears to be connected at the lower and upper
ends of the hatched connecting wall. As the Examiner reasoned (Ans. 9, FF
1) without rebuttal by Appellant, the claim does not preclude connection of
the terminal section to both the upper and lower ends of the connecting wall,
and all portions of contact are connected to one another, thereby meeting the
claim.
Finally, according to Appellant’s remarks based on the Examiner’s
depiction of a rotated version of Walkup’s Figure 7A (FF 1), Appellant
apparently does not maintain the initial dispute regarding the Examiner’s
finding with respect to the location of the barbs recited in claim 9 (compare
Br. 9-11 with Br. 12). In any case, Walkup discloses the barbs as the
Examiner determined (Ans. 3, 4, FF 1).
Appeal 2009-1038
Application 10/953,820

7
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant has failed to demonstrate
the Examiner erred in finding that Walkup discloses the disputed limitations
of claim 9. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 9, and
dependent claims 11-13 and 17-20, which were not argued separately and
fall with claim 9.

CONCLUSION
Appellant did not show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Walkup discloses “a connecting wall located at a lower end of the resilient
contact arm; a mounting section connected to a side wall of the connecting
wall between the contact arm and the terminal section . . . ; and the terminal
section being connected to a lower end of the connecting wall,” as recited in
claim 9.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 11-13, and
17-20.
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
KIS

BARLEY SNYDER, L.L.C.
1000 WESTLAKES DRIVE, SUITE 275
BERWYN, PA 19312