Ex Parte King et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201312313448 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 12/313,448 11/20/2008 Lloyd Herbert King JR. 6381Cont 5394 44341 7590 09/10/2013 JACOBSON & JOHNSON ONE WEST WATER STREET, SUITE 285 ST. PAUL, MN 55107 EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/10/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte LLOYD HERBERT KING, JR., MICHAEL BELGERI, JAMES C. KEEVEN, and WILLIAM HINER ________________ Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before SALLY G. LANE, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Daum (US 3,350,677, October 31, 1967) (“Daum”), Brown et al. (US 4,189,204, February 19, 1980) (“Brown”), and Yaworski et al. (US 2004/0121639 Al, June 24, 2004) (“Yaworski”).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrical connector for connecting wires including dissimilar electrical conductors such as copper and aluminum conductors with the electrical connector including failure inhibiting features that can include an oxidation inhibiting coating and a sealant. To ensure that a minimum pressure contact has been achieved at the interface between the electrical connector a shearable fastener can be used to secure an electrical conductor in the electrical connector. Abstract. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue in this appeal. App. Br. 19. Claim 1 recites: 1. An electrical connector comprising: 1 Claims 10 and 21 have been canceled. App. Br. 9. Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 3 an electrical insulated housing having a terminal block compartment therein; an electrically insulated cover for forming a protective closure over the terminal block compartment; a first conductor inlet extending outward from said insulated housing; a second conductor inlet extending outward from said insulated housing; a tin plated electrically conducting terminal block, said terminal block electrically isolatable and confineable in the terminal block compartment said terminal block having a first threaded passage and a second threaded passage; a first nickel plated terminal screw for rotatingly engaging the first threaded passage; a second nickel plated terminal screw for rotatingly engaging the second threaded passage; a first conductor passage located in said terminal block with said first conductor passage intersecting with the first threaded passage so that rotation of the first terminal screw in a first direction in the first threaded passage brings a conductor in the first conductor passage into current conducting condition through pressure contact of the first conductor with the terminal block; a second conductor passage located in said terminal block with said second conductor passage intersecting with the second threaded passage so that rotation of the second terminal screw in the second threaded passage in a first direction brings a conductor in the second conductor passage into a current conducting condition through pressure contact with the terminal block; Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 4 a first sealant located in said first conductor passage with said first sealant extending over an interface between an end of the first terminal screw and the conductor in the first conductor passage; and a second sealant located in said second conductor passage with said second sealant extending over an interface between an end of the second terminal screw and the conductor in the second conductor passage to thereby provide a sealant covered connection of the conductor in the first conductor passage and the second conductor passage. App. Br. 11-12. ISSUES AND ANALYSES A. Claim 1 Issue 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting “a tin plated terminal block” and “a nickel plated fastener.” App. Br. 17-18. Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred because the prior art references fail to disclose the prevention of electrical failure and possible fires in electrical junctions by inhibiting the oxidation at a junction between a terminal block and a fastener in the electrical junctions. App. Br. 18. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants has not directed us to sufficient evidence that the prior art references fail to disclose the limitations reciting “a tin plated terminal Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 5 block” and “a nickel plated fastener” other than a recitation of the claim terms and conclusory statement that the prior art does teach or suggest them. As such, Appellants’ argument fails to rise to the level that we need consider on appeal. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011): (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Moreover, although Appellants argue that Daum, Brown, and Yaworski each fail to recognize the potential problems of electrical failure and possible fires in electrical junctions (App. Br. 18), such language is equally absent from the Appellants’ claims and therefore do not fall within the scope of Appellants’ claimed invention. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification may not be read into the claims). We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in this respect. Issue 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting: “said first conductor passage intersecting with the first threaded passage,” “said second conductor passage intersecting with the second threaded passage so that rotation of the second terminal screw in the second threaded passage,” “first sealant extending over an interface between an end of the first terminal screw and the conductor,” and “second sealant Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 6 extending over an interface between an end of the second terminal screw and the conductor.” App. Br. 19. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that independent claim 1 specifically calls for a first conductor passage intersecting with a first threaded passage and a second conductor passage intersecting with a second threaded passage. App. Br. 20. Appellants argue that Daum’s access bores 24 and the portion beneath Daum’s threaded bore 26, which is part of socket space 22, are not threaded passages. Id. Appellants contend that, with respect to Daum’s threaded bore 26, Daum does not teach that the bore 18 intersects with the threaded bore 26, because the threading of the threaded bore 26 of bus bar 10 ends or ceases before reaching the conductor passage of the bus bar 10. Id. (citing Daum, Figs. 2-5). Appellants argue further that Yaworski likewise fails to teach or suggest the feature of a terminal block having conductor passages that intersect with threaded passages. App. Br. 20. Appellants assert that Yaworski instead explicitly teaches that the threaded bore 116 portion of screw 102 ending or ceasing before reaching the interior cavity 122 of Yaworski conductor member 110. Id. (citing Yaworski, Figs 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11). The Examiner responds that Daum explicitly teaches that the interface between the conductor [42, 46, 50] or conductor passage [where the conductors are located] and the respective terminal screws. Ans. 11 (Daum, Figs. 3-5). App App that: 116 wall this ass thus cond the t bore eal 2011-0 lication 12 We are n “[t]he set to force th of the bor embodime Fi embly tau Appellan teaches se uctor 122 hreaded bo is continu 04170 /313,448 ot persuad screw 102 e exposed e 112.” Y nt. Figure gure 4 is a ght by Ya ts’ argum t screw 10 inserted in re is conti ous with th ed by App is then ro portion of aworski, ¶ 4 of Yaw is a cross- worski, in as ents to the 2 in a thre to the bor nuous. Ya e bore of 7 ellants’ a tatively dr the condu [0049]. F orski is rep sectional v which a ca sembly. contrary n aded bore e of a cond worski th the condu rguments. iven … int ctor 5A ag igure 4 of roduced b iew of th ble is inst otwithsta 116 in dir uctor pass us teaches ctor passag Yaworsk o the threa ainst the o Yaworski elow: e busbar alled in th nding, Yaw ect contact age 112 w that the th e. We the i teaches ded bore pposing illustrates e busbar orski with a ith which readed refore Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 8 conclude that the Examiner did not err in determing that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitations disputed by Appellant. B. Claim 5 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of independent claim 5 reciting “covering an interface on the aluminum conductor and on the second conductor with a sealant to inhibit corrosion.” App. Br. 21. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Daum’s teaching the use of a rubber combination cap and adaptor/plug 34 having a bore 36 fitted with a nylon dowel is different from the use of the sealant to inhibit corrosion as called for in Appellants’ independent method claim 5. App. Br. 21. Appellants argue that Yaworski also fails to teach or suggest the step of using a sealant to inhibit corrosion but instead teaches the use of sealant 160 to “provide a reliable moisture barrier [f]or the cable and the conductor 110, even when the connector 101 is submerged” and “to reduce or prevent fire ….” Id. (citing Yaworski, ¶¶ [0057], [0058]). Appellants contend that Yaworski’s teaching the use of a sealant as moisture barrier or to reduce or prevent fire is different from Appellants’ step of a sealant to inhibit corrosion as called for in claim 5. Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 9 The Examiner responds that Yaworski discloses a sealant 160 located in the conductor passage with the sealant extending over an interface between an end of the first terminal screw 102 and the conductor 5A. Ans. 11 (citing Yaworski, Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art to combine Daum’s and Brown’s contact area with Yaworski’s sealant located in the conductor passage with the sealant extending over an interface between an end of the terminal screw and the conductor in the conductor passage to provide a sealant covered connection. Ans. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning. We agree with the Examiner that Yaworski teaches the use of a sealant, as required by claim 5. Although Yaworski teaches that the purpose of the sealant is to “provide a reliable moisture barrier [f]or the cable,” Yaworski also teaches that it is well-known in the art that “[i]f the conductor member and the conductors are left exposed, water and environmental contaminants may cause corrosion thereon.” Yaworski, ¶ [0004]. We find that it would therefore have been known in the contemporaneous art that the use of a sealant to exclude water and other environmental contaminants could be employed to prevent corrosion. We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 5 reciting “covering an interface on the aluminum conductor and on the second conductor with a sealant to inhibit corrosion.” Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 10 C. Claim 12 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the combined cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of dependent claim 12 reciting “including rotating the terminal fastener until a shear condition is achieved in the terminal fastener to ensure that a minimum pressure contact with the aluminum conductor has been achieved.” App. Br. 22. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that, although the Daum teaches that follower 29 engages bared conductors 42, 46, and 50 of varying sizes, Daum does not teach or suggest that follower 29 forms a shear condition with bared conductors 42, 46, and 50. App. Br. 22. Appellants argue that mere engagement between two components is different from the formation of a shear condition by two components. Id. The Examiner responds that Daum discloses threaded bore 26 with a screw 28 and the conductors [42, 46, 50] being clamped by the screw to make an electrical connection. Ans. 12 (citing Daum, Figs. 2-5). The Examiner finds that clamping of the screw to the conductor would require a step of rotating the terminal fastener until shear condition is achieved (i.e., a shear condition is necessary to clamp the conductor by the screw to make electrical contact). Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner. Daum teaches that “[t]he bus bar 10 has a threaded bore 26 of reduced diameter registering respectively with Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 11 each of the access bores 24, and each receiving 55 a screw 28 provided with a metal follower 29 for clamping the connector against the opposite side of the socket.” Daum, col. 2, ll. 52-56; see also Figs. 3-5. We find that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand that when a rotating screw is applied to a connector with sufficient force to clamp it to the opposite side of the socket, a condition of shear is applied to the connector. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited combined art references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. D. Claim 14 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determing that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 14 reciting “a sealant extending over the junction of the nickel plated fastener to a conductor in the terminal block.” App. Br. 24. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Brown, rather than teaching a nickel-plated fastener, teaches instead “a terminal 20 made of brass and [ ] plated with nickel.” App. Br. 24 (citing Brown, col. 3, ll. 43-51). Appellants contend that the terminal 20 taught by Brown functions to house wire 36 and is not for forming a junction with a conductor in a terminal block as required by claim 14. App. Br. 24. The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a terminal block and Brown discloses tin plating on the first part and nickel plating on the second App App part. Brow nick oxid expl Exam the c of Sc Brow below eal 2011-0 lication 12 Ans. 13. n, therefo el plated fa ation at the We are n icitly defin iner may laim term i. Tech Ct Brown r Retainer Termina nickel c zinc in t and even tin and t n, col. 3, : 04170 /313,448 The Exam re disclose stener to a junction ot persuad e the claim therefore that is con r., 367 F.3 ecites, in r 30 is mad l 20 is m oating is d he brass a tual failu he termina ll. 43-51; s iner finds s a sealan conducto of the con ed by App term “fa employ th sistent wit d 1359, 13 elevant pa e of beryl ade of bra esirable t nd the tin, re of the b l. Contact ee also Br 12 that the co t extendin r in the ter ductor to t ellants’ a stener” in e broadest h the Spec 64 (Fed. C rt: lium copp ss and is o prevent and thus ond (to b 26 is braz own, Fig. mbination g over the minal blo he fastener rguments. their Spec reasonabl ification. ir. 2004). er and is p plated wi inter-actio avoid grad e describe ed on. 3. Figure of Daum junction o ck to furth . Ans. 8. Appellan ification an e interpret See In re lated with th nickel. n between ual weake d) betwee 3 is repro and f the er inhibit ts do not d the ation of Am. Acad. tin. The the ning n the duced Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 13 Figure 4 is an isometric view of a terminal, retainer, and pin. The nickel-plated terminal 20 taught by Brown, when combined with retainer 30, securely holds pin 38 and wire 36 in place and is therefore consistent with the claim term “nickel-plated fastener.” See Brown, Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 18-25, 31-34. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. E. Claim 17 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determing that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 17 reciting “a screw having a weakened region susceptible to shear.” We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Daum fails to teach or suggest the disclosure of a region located between threaded portion 28 and follower 29 of screw 28 that is susceptible to shear in response to a force thereon. App. Br. 26. Appellants contend that although the Daum’s Figures 4, 5, and 6 show follower 29 engaging bared conductors 42, 46, and 50, Daum does not disclose follower 29 as forming a shear condition with the bared conductors. Id. The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a metal follower 29, located at the end of the screw 28 and that the metal follower is located in a App App groo an ap We f attac that wou simi screw there conc F. C Issue the c recit eal 2011-0 lication 12 ve or weak plied forc We agre sh ind that D hed to foll an artisan ld exert a s lar skill wo engaging fore neces lude that t laim 19 Appellan ited prior ing “a term 04170 /313,448 ened regi e. Ans. 13 e with the Figure owing the aum thus t ower 29. of ordinary hearing fo uld also a the follow sarily susc he Examin ts next ar art referen inal block on and is h . Examiner 3 is a vert parts arran eaches a s We have r skill wou rce on a w ppreciate t er 29, as eptible to er did not gue that th ces teach o having an 14 ence susc . Figure 3 ical transv ged for a crew with elated sup ld appreci ire, and w hat the sm taught by an applied err in so f e Examine r suggest oxidation eptible to s of Daum erse sectio smaller co a smaller ra our reas ate that su e find furt aller diam Daum, wo shearing inding. r erred by the limitat inhibiting hear in re is reproduc n nductor diameter e oning for ch an arra her that an eter portio uld be we force. We determini ion of clai coating t sponse to ed below nd finding ngement artisan of n of the aker and therefore ng that m 19 hereon; a : Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 15 fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon.” App. Br. 27. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Daum does not teach or suggest an oxidation inhibiting coating of insulation/block 12. App. Br. 27. Appellants also argue that Daum does not teach or suggest an oxidation inhibiting coating for screw 28. Appellants also contend that instead Brown does not teach or suggest a terminal block having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon and a fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating, but rather teaches a terminal-retainer assembly having an oxidation “preventing oil thereon.” App. Br. 28. Appellants maintain that the bonded terminal-retainer assembly having an oxidation preventing oil thereon, as taught by Brown, is different from an electrical connector for inhibiting oxidation that includes a terminal block having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon and a fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon as required by claim 19. Id. The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a terminal block and Brown discloses tin plating on the first part and nickel plating on the second part and, therefore, the combination of Daum and Brown discloses a terminal block with tin plating on the terminal block and nickel plating on the screw. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds that tin and nickel plating provides oxidation inhibiting characteristic to the terminal block and the fastener. Ans. 14. Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 16 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Yaworski teaches that corrosion of connector elements by water or environmental contaminants is well-known in the art. Yaworski, ¶ [0004]. We agree with the Examiner that Daum discloses a terminal block and that Brown teaches plating portions of the terminal and retainer inserted integrally into a block as a corrosion-resistant measure. See Brown, col. 3, ll.43-51, Fig. 1. We have related, supra, our reasoning with respect to why Brown teaches a nickel-plated fastener. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. G. Claim 19 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 20 reciting “a shearable head.” App. Br. 29. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis We have related, supra, our reasoning as to why we affirm the Examiner’s findings that the prior art teaches or suggests the limitations “rotating the terminal fastener until a shear condition is achieved in the terminal fastener” and “a screw having a weakened region susceptible to shear.” We add merely that Figure 3 of Daum depicts the head of the screw (i.e., that part in contact with the follower) as having a decreased diameter Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 17 susceptible (as explained supra) to a shearing force and, consequently, shearable. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err. G. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness Issue Appellants argue that, even if the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner erred by contintuing to reject the claims in view of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. App. Br. 9, 30. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that there is a long-felt need to prevent fires that may occur as a result of the overheating at the junctions between aluminum conductors and/or copper conductors and that this problem has plagued the electrical industry for over 40 years. App. Br. 31. Appellants adduce as evidence of such a long-felt need a Loss Control Technical Bulletin entitled “Reducing the Fire Hazards of Aluminum Wiring,” published by the Philadelphia Insurance Companies (rev’d March 17, 2008) (the “Loss Control Bulletin”). App. Br. 31; Exhibit A; see also Declaration of James Keeven (“Keeven Decl.”) 2. Appellants point to the conclusions of the Loss Control Bulletin, which they allege recognizes only three permanent solutions to the problems of fires caused by junctions between aluminum conductors and/or copper conductors, namely (1) removing all the aluminum wire and replacing it with copper wire; (2) using a COPALUMTM connector manufactured by Aircraft-Marine Products, Inc.; or (3) use an Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 18 ALUMINCONN™ connector (which Appellants allege corresponds to their claimed invention). App. Br. 32; Loss Control Bulletin 1, Keeven Decl. 2. Appellants argue further that the COPALUMTM connector requires a special connector and a special crimping tool that requires installation by an electrician who has been specifically trained and licensed, whereas Appellants’ ALUMINCONNTM connectors can be installed by most licensed electrician using standard tools and are consequently less expensive to install. App. Br. 32-33; Keeven Decl. 3. Appellants also adduce a draft letter, dated May, 2009, to Mr. Robert L. Kath, Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee of The Shores Townhouse Association of Aurora, CO, from Mr. Andrew M. Trotta, Director, Division of Electrical Engineering, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CSPC”), Bethesda, MD. Exhibit C 1 (the “Trotta Draft Letter”). The Trotta Draft Letter was written in response to a letter from Mr. Kath to Mr. Trotta, requesting review and approval of repairs to 317 townhouses employing the ALUMICONNTM connector, in preference to the more expensive COPALUMTM connectors. Exhibit C 2 (the “Kath Letter”). The Trotta Draft Letter relates that Dr. Jesse Aronstein, having tested Appellants’ ALUMICONNTM receptors, reported his findings at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (“IEEE”) 53rd Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts. Trotta Draft Letter 1. The Trotta Draft Letter relates that Dr. Aronstein reported that: These preliminary tests of the new [ALUMICONNTM] setscrew splicing connection show it to be a satisfactory candidate for the aluminum wire pigtailing connection. Tightened to the manufacturer’s recommendation, it yields Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 19 consistent low-resistance aluminum wire terminations, a projected low rate of resistance increase, and withstands wire disturbance. A recommendation for its use as an alternative to CPSC’s approved and well-proven compression connector is justified where that recommended repair is not available. The performance of the setscrew connector is far superior to that of a twist-on connector that is presently marketed for the application. Id. The Trotta Draft letter proceeds to assure Mr. Kath that, although final recommendations with respect to updating the CSPC’s aluminum wiring repair recommendations document had not yet been made, that should not “preclude you or any of the members of your townhouse community from using the AlumiConn connector, which is listed by Underwriters Laboratories as an acceptable method for joining copper conductors to aluminum conductors and aluminum conductors to aluminum conductors.” Trotta Draft Letter 1-2. Appellants argue that the Trotta Draft Letter is the type of statement that is within the scope of “laudatory statements” made by persons knowledgeable in the art. Appellants contend that the Trotta Draft Letter, coupled with the fact that the ALUMICONNTM connector is allegedly recommended by Underwriters Laboratories, sufficiently establishes that the Appellants’ invention is non-obviousness over the Examiner’s combination of the cited references. App. Br. 15-16. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Leaving aside the question of how much evidentiary weight, if any, we should assign to the unsigned, undated Trotta Draft Letter, Appellants’ evidence demonstrates that there was, in fact, already at least one solution to the problem of fires caused by junctions between aluminum conductors and/or copper Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 20 conductors, viz., the more expensive COPALUMTM connector. Loss Control Bulletin 1; Kath Letter 1. Moreover, Appellants adduce no other evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, (e.g., commercial success, failure of others, skepticism of experts, teaching away by others, etc.) beyond the single unsigned letter declaring that the AlumiConn connector is an “acceptable method for joining copper conductors to aluminum conductors and aluminum conductors to aluminum conductors” and that it is “a satisfactory candidate for the aluminum wire pigtailing connection.” Trotta Decl. Letter 1. Furthermore, Appellants do not provide a detailed analysis to persuade us that the AlumiConn connector falls within the scope of Appellants’ claimed connector. When we when consider the totality of the evidence before us we determine that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness was not in error. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion”). We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). Appeal 2011-004170 Application 12/313,448 21 AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation