Ex Parte Kunes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 1, 2016

12824526 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/824,526 06/28/2010
21839 7590 07/06/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Anthony Kunes
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
007 6091-000024 1058
EXAMINER
GILMAN, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ANTHONY KUNES and
PAUL THOMAS MCMAHON
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 18-27. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Astrium Limited.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as relating to a TNC
(threaded Neill-Concelman) connector for use with radio and wired
applications. Spec 1 :4--9. The invention's connectors include fingers that,
according to the Specification, result in very low passive intermodulation
distortion. Id. at 1:16-2:2.
Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
18. A method of manufacturing a connector comprising:
forming an outer connection element or inner connection element
having fingers;
deforming the fingers to extend at an angle to a longitudinal axis of
the connector;
restraining the fingers at the angle to the longitudinal axis; and
heat treating the connection element while the fingers are restrained at
the angle to the longitudinal axis, wherein the heat treatment of the
restrained fingers is such that the deformation of the fingers is made
permanent and the fingers are permanently deformed to extend at the angle
to the longitudinal axis.
Appeal Br. 2 Claims Appendix - 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hayden et al. us 3,655,460 Apr. 11, 1972
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed January 28,
2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed July 25, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed September 17, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed November 17, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
(hereinafter "Hayden")
Bickos et al.
(hereinafter "Bickos")
Michael
Follingstad et al.
(hereinafter "F o llingstad")
us 4,397 ,086
us 5,041,020
us 6,109,963
REJECTIONS
Aug. 9, 1983
Aug.20, 1991
Aug. 29, 2000
The Examiner withdraws all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1.
Ans. 2. The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 18, 21, 22, 29, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Follingstad in view of Hayden. Final Act. 5.
Rejection 2. Claims 26-28, 30, 31, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Follingstad in view of Michael. Id. at 6.
Rejection 3. Claims 1, 18-20, 22-25, 27-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bickos in view of Hayden. Id. at 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants provide one set of arguments for all claims at issue and
focus on claim 18. Appeal Br. 10-11. We, therefore, limit our discussion to
claim 18. Claims 1 and 19-27 stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner rejects claim 18 as obvious over Follingstad in view of
Hayden (Rejection 1) and as obvious over Bickos in view of Hayden
(Rejection 3). Final Act. 5, 7. Appellants argue that the cited references fail
to describe a connector where the fingers are heat treated such that they are
permanently deformed to extend at the angle to the longitudinal axis.
Appeal Br. 5-11. Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill would
3
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
not be inclined to combine the teachings of the Hayden reference with
Follingstad or with Bickos. Id. at 6-7. We disagree with both arguments.
Follingstad and Bickos each teach beryllium copper alloy connector
fingers that are deformed to extend at the angle to the connector's
longitudinal axis. Final Act. 5-7; Follingstad Fig. 6, 4:66-67, 5:6-10;
Bickos Fig. 2, 1 :30-34, 2:20-32. Follingstad and Bickos also explain that
the connector fingers are heat treated. Final Act. 5-7; Follingstad 5:6-10;
Bickos Abstract, 1 :30-34, 2:20-32. Bickos states, for example, that the
purpose of the heat treatment is "to obtain the required resiliency" and to
"provide the spring characteristics necessary to make the fingers 15
resiliently and radially deflectable." Bickos 1 :30-34.
The Hayden reference does not relate to a radio frequency connector,
but it relates to forming an object from the same material utilized by
Follingstad and Bickos-beryllium copper alloy. Hayden 1 :33-34. Hayden
teaches that a beryllium copper alloy object can be deformed, restrained, and
then heated. Final Act. 5-7; Hayden 1:44--49, 2:50-57, 3:20-65. The result
of this process is that the alloy is permanently set in its final position. Id.
We agree with the Examiner's determination that it would have been
obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art to restrain the connector fingers
of Follingstad (as in rejections 1 and 2) or Bickos (as in rejection 3) in the
desired position (i.e., deformed to extend at the angle to the longitudinal
axis) and to then heat treat the fingers to permanently set their position.
Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3--4, 6. The obviousness of this combination is
especially apparent given that Follingstad expressly teaches heating of the
alloy (Follingstad 5:6-10), and Bickos teaches heating the alloy after the
desired shape is formed in order to "harden[] the base metal to provide the
4
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
spring characteristics necessary to make the fingers 15 resiliently and
radially deflectable" (Bickos 2:20-32).
Appellants argue that a person of skill would not be inclined to apply
the heat treatment of Hayden to the Follingstad because it would add
"manufacturing complexity" (Appeal Br. 9) and would not apply the Hayden
treatment to Bickos because increasing pressure at the plated ends could
"result in additional wear on the gold band" (Appeal Br. 10). The
Follingstad and Bickos references, however, each already teach that heat
treating the material is preferred, and Bickos additionally has a stated goal of
hardening the beryllium copper base metal to provide resiliency. Bickos
2:30-32. A preponderance of evidence, therefore, does not support
Appellants argument that heat treating would not be desirable.
Appellants also argue that the Follingstad and Bickos references do
not discuss problems relating to passive interface modulation (the problem
Appellants intend to address with the claimed method) and that there would
therefore be no reason to attempt to increase the pressure exerted by the
fingers of the Follingstad or Bickos connectors. Appeal Br. 8-10. The
Examiner correctly notes that claim 18, however, includes no recitations
regarding passive interface modulation. Ans. 5---6. Moreover, claim 18's
recitation of fingers that "are permanently deformed" does not require that
the fingers exert any particular degree of pressure between connection
elements. Thus, application of the Hayden technique to the method of
creating a connector as explained in either Follingstad or Bickos meets all
elements of claim 18. Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3---6. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's first and third obviousness rejections (i.e., Follingstad in
view of Hayden and Bickos in view of Hayden).
5
Appeal2015-001660
Application 12/824,526
Appellant makes no distinct arguments regarding the Examiner's
rejection based upon the combination of Follingstad and Michael. We thus
sustain the Examiner's second obviousness rejection as well.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1
and 18-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6