Ex Parte Koegel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 3, 2003

09030032 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 3, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KEITH S. KOEGEL and EARL C. MYERS, JR.
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-38.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A backer plate for a flexible film circuit strip,
comprising:
a member having a body section with a film non-adjacent
surface and with a film-adjacent surface, said body section
extending forwardly to a leading edge; and
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
2
said member including side walls extending vertically from
said film-adjacent surface along side edges thereof to define a
film-receiving nest,
whereby an end portion of said flexible film circuit strip
is receivable into said film-receiving nest to be adhered to said
film-adjacent surface to define an assembly insertable into a
receiving cavity of a receptacle connector.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Jerominek 3,737,833 Jun. 5, 1973
Rehbogen, Jr. et al. (Rehbogen) 4,367,006 Jan. 4, 1983
Antes 4,770,645 Sep. 13, 1988
Claims 1-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-16 and 19-36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Rehbogen in view of Jerominek, further in
view of Antes.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections of the claims on appeal.
As to the initial rejection of the claims under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner questions the use of
the language “film adjacent surface” and “film non-adjacent
surface.” This language appears in some form in each claim on
appeal.
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
3
In reversing this rejection, as appellants make clear in the
brief and reply brief, the examiner has appeared to misconstrue
the subject matter of the claims on appeal in viewing the claimed
flexible film circuit strip as having an adjacent and non-
adjacent surface. According to the subject matter of the
disclosed and claimed invention, it is the backer plate “member”
which has been recited to have these features. The film-adjacent
surface has been identified and labeled in Figures 2 and 3 as
surface 52. Correspondingly, the film-remote or film non-
adjacent surface has been labeled in Figure 3 as surface 66.
Both surfaces are shown but not necessarily labeled in most of
the Figures 1-12. Even a brief study of the disclosed invention
yields a clear understanding, particularly to an artisan, of the
nature and meaning of the two stated surfaces in each of the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-38 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
We also reverse the stated rejection of claims 1-16 and 19-
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner relies upon Rehbogen for
the basic teachings of the use of a flexible ribbon cable 8 which
is interconnectable to a connector 2 which in turn is mounted on
printed circuit board 14 as generally shown in Figures 1-4. As
we understand the examiner’s reasoning, this reference is not
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
4
cited to provide a basis for the claimed backer plate “member,”
and our review indicates that such is not taught or contemplated
in this reference.
On the other hand, the examiner appears to rely upon
Jerominek for the teachings of the backer plate “member” in the
body of representative independent claim 1 on appeal. In both
the statement of the rejection portion and the responsive
arguments portion of the answer, the examiner appears to
correlate the flat non-conductive member/wafer 4 as comprising
the claimed backer plate. The examiner also makes reference to
the non-conductive housing 2 as a basis for some features of the
backer plate as well.
The claimed backer plate member requires that it include
side walls extending vertically along the side edges thereof to
define a film-receiving nest. Element 4 in Figures 2 and 4 of
Jerominek clearly does not have side walls itself which extend
vertically to define a film-receiving nest. A separately stated
element, a non-conductive housing 2, is stated by the examiner to
comprise the side walls and the film-receiving nest. Although we
agree with this interpretation of the internal structure of the
non-conductive housing 2 as best depicted in Figure 2 of
Jerominek, these required features are not part of the flat non-
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
5
conductive member/wafer 4 argued by the examiner to comprise the
claimed backer plate member.
Similarly, the whereby clause requires that the flexible
film circuit itself be received into the nest as stated in the
previous clause of representative claim 1 on appeal. Although we
have indicated there is such a region or nest within the non-
conductive housing 2 as shown in Figure 2, it forms no part of
the flat non-conductive member/wafer 4 according to Jerominek’s
teachings. Although we find it reasonable within 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the artisan to have inserted the male connector 101 of
Jerominek into the connector 2 of Rehbogen instead of into the
female connector 102 in Figure 1 of Jerominek, because of the
noted deficiencies with respect to Jerominek, the subject matter
of representative independent claim 1 on appeal clearly would not
have been met even if the two stated references were properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
A similar conclusion is reached with respect to the
additional teachings and suggestions provided by Antes. It is
not clear to us from the examiner’s reasoning in the answer as a
whole what purpose the examiner relies upon Antes. It appears to
us, however, that the examiner is analogizing the multi-wire
retainer 10 as in some way comprising the claimed backer plate
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
6
member. Even if we similarly do so, the multi-wire retainer 10
is not contemplated in this reference to be adhered to a film-
adjacent surface to define an assembly that is insertable into a
receiving cavity of a receptacle connector. The entire assembly
of Antes is not contemplated to be insertable in any way related
to a receptacle connector. The multi-wire retainer 10 of Antes
is shown to be fixedly attached to the printed circuit board 56
without the use of an intermediate connector. Thus, even if we
consider, for the sake of argument, that it would have been
obvious to combine the collective teachings and showings of all
three references relied upon by the examiner, the subject matter
of representative independent claim 1 on appeal would not have
been met.
The subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal is the basis of corresponding additional limitations
provided within each of the remaining independent claims 19, 23
and 30 on appeal. It is thus apparent that the rejections of
these independent claims cannot be sustained. Because we have
not sustained the rejection of any independent claims 1, 19, 23
and 30 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the separate rejection of
each of their respective dependent claims must also be reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
7
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting all claims on appeal under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. Similarly, the separately stated
rejection of most of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is also reversed. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Michael R. Fleming ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Lance Leonard Barry )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT/tdl
Appeal No. 2001-0460
Application No. 09/030,032
8
The Whitaker Corporation
4550 New Linden Hill Road
Suite 450
Wilmington, DE 19808