Ex Parte Kuczynski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2014

13028504 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte JOSEPH KUCZYNSKI,
AMANDA E. MIKHAIL, and MARK D. PLUCINSKI
______________

Appeal 2013-002615
Application 13/028,504
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal to the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1–5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)1 and
Childers (US 4,940,413 issued July 10, 1990).2 Br. 4; Ans. 2. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 1, as illustrated by Specification Figure 1B, illustrates
Appellants’ invention of a separable electrical interface comprising a circuit
card having conductive edge tabs and connector contacts (Spec. ¶ 0006), and
is representative of the claims on appeal:

1 Spec. ¶¶ 0010, 0018, Fig. 1A (Prior Art).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2013-002615
Application 13/028,504
2
1. A separable electrical interface, comprising:
a circuit card (102) having one or more electrically conductive card
edge tabs (104) having a raised, curved top surface profile (108);
one or more connector contacts (106), each having a curved surface
profile, each of the one or more connector contacts’ (106) curved surface
positioned relative to a corresponding card edge tab (104) to selectively
engage the raised curved surface (108) of the corresponding card edge tab
(104) at a point of final contact.
Br. 9 (8. Claims App’x). Spec. ¶¶ 0018, 0019, Figs. 1A, 1B.
Appellant argues the ground of rejection on representative claim 1,
and thus, we decide this appeal based on this claim. Br. 5, 8. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
We are of the opinion Appellants’ arguments do not establish that the
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the nonobviousness
of the separable electrical interface encompassed by claim 1. In this respect,
we are in agreement with the Examiner’s analysis of the evidence in AAPA
and Childers, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and response to
Appellants’ arguments stated in the Answer, to which we add the following
for emphasis with respect to Appellants’ arguments. Ans. 2–4; Br. 6–8.
We cannot agree with Appellants’ position that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combination of AAPA and Childers would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify AAPA’s separable electrical interface
by providing a raised, curved top surface profile metallic bump on at least
one of the electrically conductive card edge tabs of a circuit card as taught
by Childers in the reasonable expectation of increasing the effective bonding
pressure between the card edge tab(s) and at least one connector contact of
AAPA’s separable electrical interface. Ans. 2–4. Childers abstract, col.3
l.54–col.4 l.5, col.4 ll.6–23, col.4 ll.40–49.
Appeal 2013-002615
Application 13/028,504
3
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that Childers would
not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a separable electrical interface
encompassed by claim 1 because Childers would not have suggested that the
raised, curved top surface profile metallic bump on a pad is combined with
the curved surface of a connector contact, and thus “teaches away from a
curved surface to curved surface contact” or mating arrangement as claimed.
Br. 6, 7–8 (citing Childers col.8 ll.29–33, Fig. 12).
We find that Childers would have disclosed that a raised, curved top
surface profile metallic bump disposed on the surface of a pad provides
effective bonding pressure on an opposing pad which is not limited in shape.
Childers col.4 ll.6–49. Childers discloses the preferred embodiment
illustrated in Figure 12 which has a raised, curved top surface profile
metallic bump 66 on flat pad 52 which contacts flat pad 50. Childers col.6
l.57–col.8 l.66, Figs. 5–8, 12. Childers further discloses a preference for a
separable electrical connector interface which has only one raised, curved
top surface profile metallic bump per pair of opposed pads so that “there are
not two bumps in facing relationship at the interconnection location.”
Childers col.8 ll.25-33.
On this record, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that Childers’ raised, curved top surface profile
metallic bump can be used with any card tab or connector combination of
any shape in which the raised, curved top surface profile metallic bump
provides effective bonding pressure between the opposed pads. Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art routinely following the combined teachings of
AAPA and Childers would have reasonably used Childers’ raised, curved
top surface profile metallic bump on a card edge tab of AAPA’s separable
electrical interface to effectively contact an opposed connector contact. See,
Appeal 2013-002615
Application 13/028,504
4
e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also, e.g., KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“When there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good
reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but
of ordinary skill and common sense.”); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d
1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“the expectation of success need only be
reasonable, not absolute”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88 (Fed. Cir.
2006); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.” (citations omitted)); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art).
We are not convinced otherwise by Appellants’ contentions that
Childers’ preference that each of the card edge tab and connector contact of
a separable electrical interface should not have a raised, curved top surface
profile metallic bump, teaches away from the claimed card edge tab and
connector contact arrangement for several reasons. First, Childers’ preferred
embodiment does not support Appellants’ contention because one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Childers’ preference in
this respect is limited to the raised, curved top surface profile metallic bump
disposed on the surfaces of each of the opposed pads, and thus does not
encompass a connector contact having a curved surface without a bump.
Appeal 2013-002615
Application 13/028,504
5
And second, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered that
Childers’ disclosure is limited to the relied on preferred alternative
embodiment. See, e.g., In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining that “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed”); see also. e.g., In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750
(CCPA 1976) (“[T]he fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be
preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including
unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.”).
Finally, we cannot subscribe to Appellants’ unsupported contention
that the age difference between the issue date of Childers and the filing date
of the present Application establishes that no one of ordinary skill in the art
arrived at a separable electrical interface falling within claim 1 prior to
Appellants solving the “bump-to-bump” contact alignment issues identified
by Childers. Not only does Childers not support Appellants’ contentions
with respect to the shape of the connector contact as we found above, but, as
the Examiner points out, Appellants have not adduced evidence that,
notwithstanding knowledge of AAPA and Childers, the art tried and failed to
solve the problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over AAPA and Childers.
The Primary Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED