Ex Parte Johannes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

11725938 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/725,938 03/19/2007 Richard A. Johannes 003C.0050.U1(US) 7608
87120 7590 06/18/2012
Harrington & Smith
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
HAMMOND, BRIGGITTE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD A. JOHANNES
____________________

Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-12, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an electrical connector
having a ferrite block assembly (Spec. ¶0001]).
Independent claim 5, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
5. An electrical connector comprising:

a housing comprising a main section and a cover;

electrical contacts connected to the housing; and

a filtering ferrite block assembly for squib system
electrical conductors connected to the housing, the
filtering ferrite block assembly comprising:

a first ferrite block comprising first conductor
channels;

a second ferrite block comprising second
conductor channels, wherein the second ferrite
block is adapted to be connected to the first ferrite
block with portions of the electrical conductors
therebetween with the electrical conductors
extending through the first and second conductor
channels between the two ferrite blocks,

wherein the first ferrite block is connected to the main
section forming a first sub-assembly, and wherein the
second ferrite block is mounted to the cover forming a
second sub-assembly.

REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 2-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Little (U.S. Patent No. 6,663,411 B2, issued
December 16, 2003).
Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues substantially the same features found in independent
claims 5, 7, and 12. Appellant asserts Little does not teach or suggest first
and second sub-assemblies as claimed (App. Br. 5-6). Appellant also argues
the Examiner’s definition of the term “mount” is not correct, but does not
provide an alternate definition (App. Br. 5).
We adopt the definition of the term “mount” found by the Examiner
(Ans. 3).1 Little discloses, in the exploded view of Figure 1, a cover 14, an
upper ferrite block 20 a lower ferrite block 20, and a housing 12. Figure 3
shows a cross sectional view of the connector in Figure 1. Little’s disclosure
states the connector “includes a connector housing 12 and a hinged
connector cover 14 for fixedly supporting a first and second elongate
electrical contact, 16 and 18, and a split ferrite assembly 20” (col. 5, ll. 53-
56) (emphasis added). This disclosure, along with Figures 1 and 3, supports
the Examiner’s finding that Little discloses a first sub-assembly (20, 12) and
a second sub-assembly (20, 14) as claimed (Ans. 6). Thus, the limitations in
Appellant’s claims 5, 7, and 12 read on Little’s disclosure. Since claims 2-4,
6, 8-11, 14 and 15 depend from claims 5, 7, and 12 and were not separately
argued, these claims are also found to be anticipated by Little.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b).

1 The definition of “mount” provided by the Examiner (“to seat or place
oneself on”) was found on the website cited (Ans. 3), contrary to what
Appellant asserts (App. Br. 5).
Appeal 2010-006733
Application 11/725,938

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-12, 14, and 15 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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

vsh/llw