Ex parte Korinek

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2001

08542231 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2001)

1
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHRIS W. KORINEK
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 19.
The disclosed invention relates to polygonal-shaped
elements on the outer surface of a twist-on connector that are
engaged by a tool that rotates the twist-on connector to
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
2
thereby join ends of electrical wires to a predefined torque
level. The polygonal-shaped elements deform upon application
of a torque greater than the predefined torque level in order
to prevent excessive torque from damaging the electrical wires
and the connector.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A twist-on connector for joining ends of electrical
wires to a predefined torque level, wherein the connector
comprises a hollow body having an open end, a closed end, and
an outer surface extending between the open end and the closed
end, the outer surface having elements which form an external
polygonal shape for engagement by a tool to effect rotation of
the hollow body, wherein the elements deform upon application
of greater than the predefined torque level in order to
prevent excessive torque from damaging either or both of the
electrical wires and the connector.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Swanson 4,288,657 Sep. 8,
1981
Williamson 5,148,727 Sep. 22,
1992
Blaha Des. 315,139 Mar. 5, 1991
Claims 1 through 6 and 9 through 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swanson in view
of Williamson.
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
Inasmuch as claims 7 and 8 depend from independent claim1
1, a proper rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must include
Swanson in the combined teachings of Blaha and Williamson.
For this reason, we will review this rejection as if Swanson
was included in the combined teachings applied by the
examiner.
3
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Williamson .1
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the claims on appeal require deformable polygonal-
shaped elements on the outer surface of a twist-on connector
that prevent a tool from applying excessive torque to the
twist-on connector. The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page
4) that Swanson lacks such deformable polygonal-shaped
elements on the outer surface of the wire connector 10. The
polygonal shape and the wings alluded to by the examiner
(Answer, page 4) are on the inner surface of the Swanson
connector (Figure 5, element 28; Figure 4, element 24), and
they are not deformable upon application of torque by a tool.
Swanson discloses ribs 12a and 12b (Figures 1 and 2) on the
outer surface of the connector that function as “torque
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
4
limiting means during tool application” (Abstract), however,
Swanson is silent as to whether the ribs deform upon
application of excessive torque by the tool. Williamson
discloses a deformable locking collar/nut 24 that includes a
hexagonal-shaped central portion 34 and a deformable head
portion 36 (Figure 2). The examiner’s contentions to the
contrary notwithstanding (Answer, page 4), the hexagonal-
shaped central portion 34 of the nut is not engaged by the
installation tool 20, and it is not deformed during
installation of the nut onto the bolt 26. During installation
of the nut 24 onto the bolt 26, the tool 20 twists the
deformable head portion 36 to force the material of the head
portion into the recesses 27 of the threads of the bolt 26 to
thereby lock the nut and the bolt (Abstract, column 3, lines
60 through 62; column 4, lines 24 through 33). The deformable
head portion 36 of the nut 24 in Williamson is not an over-
torque limiting means. Turning lastly to Blaha, we agree with
the examiner (Answer, page 5) that “Blaha (‘139) does not
disclose the polygonal shaped element being deformable such
that the corners will deform at a predetermined torque.”
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
5
In summary, the rejections are reversed because the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention.
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Howard B. Blankenship )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:tdl
Appeal No. 1998-0861
Application No. 08/542,231
7
George E. Haas
Quarles and Brady
411 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497