Ex Parte Huang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 2009

11415188 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RU-KUEN HUANG and YU-YUAN TAI
____________

Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 16, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18-20. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a stacked connecting module having fasteners
that engage in a specific direction and stop movement in the specific
direction.1
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A connecting module, comprising:
a first connector having at least two first jacks and at least two first fasteners,
and a block portion, wherein each first jack correspondingly receives an
external plug; and
a second connector having at least two second jacks and at least two second
fasteners, wherein each second jack correspondingly receives another
external plug, the first connector is assembled with the second connector by
a combination of the first fasteners and the second fasteners respectively,
each first fastener and each second fastener are engaged by moving the first
connector and the second connector in a predetermined direction parallel to
the direction in which the external plugs are received by the at least two first
jacks and the at least two second jacks;
wherein the block portion stops the second connector from sliding along the
predetermined direction;

1 See generally Spec. 2-3.
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

3
wherein the at least two first fasteners and the first connector are integrally
formed as a single unit, and all first fasteners are disposed on only one side
of the first connector and are arranged along the predetermined direction
with respect to the external plug;
wherein the at least two second fasteners and the second connector are
integrally formed as a single unit, and all second fasteners are disposed on
only one side of the second connector and are arranged along the
predetermined direction with respect to the external plug.

The Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Okabe US 5,895,296 Apr. 20, 1999
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being unpatentable over Okabe (Ans. 3-6).
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okabe and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Ans. 6).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

4
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that Okabe’s connecting hook 17 and lance hole 16
fail to engage in a manner that would prevent the connecting hook 17 from
sliding out of the lance hole 16 if a force was applied parallel to the direction
in which the external plugs are received (Br. 11). It is the Examiner’s
position that the interior back wall of the lance hole 16 stops the connector
17 from sliding along the predetermined direction; therefore, claim 1 reads
upon the Okabe reference (Ans. 7-8).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Okabe
discloses a connecting module wherein the block portion stops the second
connector from sliding along a predetermined direction?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Figure 1 of Okabe is reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

5

Figure 1 is a perspective view of the combined-type connector before the
connectors are combined.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

6
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants’ argument that Okabe’s configuration does
not prevent the connecting hook 17 from sliding out of lance hole 16 if a
force is applied parallel to the direction in which the external plugs are
received. However, claim 1 states: “wherein the block portion stops the
second connector from sliding along the predetermined direction” (emphasis
added). As the Examiner points out, Okabe discloses that the interior stop
wall of the lance hole 16 abuts with the connecting hook 17, thus preventing
the connector block 11A from sliding along the predetermined direction.
See Ans. 7; FF 1. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1 because claim 1 does not require the connector block to be locked
so that sliding does not occur in multiple predetermined directions. Claim 1
only requires that the connector block be prevented from sliding along the
predetermined direction.2 Therefore, claim 1 reads upon Okabe.
Appellants argue that claim 14 requires “the second connector from
sliding along the predetermined direction,” and therefore claim 14 is
distinguished over Okabe (emphasis added). See Br. 13. As we stated
previously, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of

2 This single direction is defined by the following recitation in claim 1:
“each first fastener and each second fastener are engaged by moving the first
connector and the second connector in a predetermined direction parallel to
the direction in which the external plugs are received by the at least two first
jacks and the at least two second jacks.” (Each connector can be moved in
the same direction.)
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

7
the claim. Claim 14 does not require the connector block to be locked so
that sliding does not occur in multiple predetermined directions. Claim 14
only requires that the connector block be prevented from sliding along a
predetermined direction. Therefore, claim 14 reads upon Okabe.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 14. We will
also sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2-7, 9, and 10, which depend
upon claim 1, as well as claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, which depend upon claim
14, since Appellants have not argued with particularity the reasons why
these claims distinguish over Okabe.

Obviousness Rejection
Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection of claims 13 and 20,
which depend upon claims 1 and 14, respectively, should not be sustained
for the same reasons presented in regards to claims 1 and 14, respectively
(Br. 13). Such conclusory assertions without supporting explanation or
analysis particularly pointing out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning fall well
short of persuasively rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 20 for the
reasons indicated previously.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Okabe discloses a connecting module wherein the block portion stops the
second connector from sliding along a predetermined direction.
Appeal 2009-001797
Application 11/415,188

8

ORDER
We will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10,
13-16, and 18-20.
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

babc

BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH
PO BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH VA 22040-0747