Ex Parte Lappoehn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

11548100 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JUERGEN LAPPOEHN
____________

Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER , Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant‟s invention concerns a plug-in connector including a first
connector housing part in which contact elements are provided whose
contact element end pieces are prepared for being soldered to a board (Spec.
3).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1: A plug-in connector having a first connector housing
part in which contact elements are provided whose rear contact
element end pieces are prepared for being soldered to a board,
at least over a partial area, and are arranged on the side to be
placed on the board in one plane of the contact element end
pieces, which extends in parallel to the plane of the board,
where, in the mounted condition, the first connector housing
part is arranged relative to the board in such a way that the
plug-in direction comes to lie in a plug-in plane extending in
parallel to the plane of the board, and which in the mounted
condition of the plug-in connector is located in an area in front
of the board and adjacent the board, wherein the plug-in
connector is configured as a circular plug-in connector and
wherein a second rear connector housing part is integrally
formed on the first connector housing part for accommodating
at least part of the rear contact element end pieces, wherein a
strain-relief plate is arranged in an area of the second rear
connector housing part, and wherein the strain relief plate is
provided with at least one locking hook that engages behind the
board when the board is mounted on the plug-in connector.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Fang (US Patent No. 6,764,338 B2,
July 20, 2004), Chiou (US Patent No. 6,109,966, August 29, 2000), and
Smith (US Patent No. 5,104,326, April 14, 1992).
Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

3
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Fang, Chiou, Smith, and Lundergan (US Patent No.
4,998,896, March 12, 1991).
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Fang, Chiou, Smith, and Fair (US Patent No. 6,419,526 B1,
July 16, 2002).

ISSUES
Appellant contends that none of the references disclose or suggest a
plug-in connector including rear contact element end pieces of the plug-in
connector being arranged on the side to be placed on a board in one plane of
the contact element end pieces. The rear contact element end pieces extend
parallel to the plane of the board. (App. Br. 7-8). According to Appellant,
the terminals of Chiou are not in one plane.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to modify Fang and Chiou to have a locking hook
such as that suggested by Smith. According to Appellant, the skilled artisan
would not have looked to Smith‟s right angle connector to modify Fan and
Chiou, configured with a front mating face parallel to the board (App. Br.
11-12).
Appellant‟s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does Chiou teach rear contact element end pieces arranged in one
plane?
2. Would it have been obvious to modify Fang and Chiou to include
the locking hook of Smith?

Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when „the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.‟

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-3, 6, 10, AND 11
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellant‟s argument that Chiou does not
teach rear contact element end pieces arranged on the side to be placed on
the board in one plane of the contact element end pieces, which extend in
parallel to the plane of the board (App. Br. 7-8).
Figures 2 and 3 of Chiou show a plurality of terminals 2. Figure 3
illustrates that the terminals are received in three pairs of terminal
passageways 102.
Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

5
Figure 3 of Chiou is an exploded view of the mini DIN connector of the
invention.
We agree with the Examiner‟s finding that Chiou teaches rear contact
element end pieces arranged in one plane (Ans. 6-7). The pairs of terminal
passageways are concededly not arranged in one plane. The terminals 2
include varying “drops,” however, such that the terminal ends that will come
in contact with circuit board 5 are all arranged in one plane. As may be seen
in Figure 3, the terminals to be inserted in the upper pair of terminal
passageways 102 (in the Figure, the terminals closest to connector body 1)
are provided with the largest drop. The terminals to be inserted in the
middle pair of terminal passageways have a moderately sized drop. The
terminals to be inserted in the lower pair of terminal passageways (which are
Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

6
oriented vertically) do not include a drop, but simply a straight connector.
In this way, the terminal ends are configured to be arranged in the same
horizontal plane for contacting circuit board 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant‟s argument that the person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Fang and
Chiou in view of Smith (App. Br. 10-11). We agree with the Examiner that
one or ordinary skill would have recognized that the contact terminal end
can be any type of through-hole mount or surface mount (Ans. 8), and that
the locking device could have any configuration and be substituted, as long
as the function of locking the board to the plug-in connector is retained
(Ans. 4, 8).
Appellant‟s further remarks specifically directed to claim 10 assert
that the grooves 310 and 320 of Fang do not engage part 111 “which the
Examiner considers to be the first connector housing part” (App. Br. 12). As
claim 10 recites “at least one recess which is engaged by the second
connector housing part,” we find that Appellant has not identified any
alleged error in the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 10.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6,
10, and 11 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Fang in view of Chiou
and Smith. We will sustain the Examiner‟s rejection.

CLAIMS 7 AND 12
Appellant‟s only argument concerning these claims is that the further
references to Lundergan and Fair do not remedy the alleged deficiencies of
the combination of Fang, Chiou, and Smith (App. Br. 12-14). As noted
supra, we are not persuaded that such deficiencies exist. Therefore, we will
Appeal 2010-003928
Application 11/548,100

7
sustain the Examiner‟s § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 12, for the reasons
given with respect to the § 103 rejection of claim 1, supra.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Chiou teaches rear contact element end pieces arranged in one
plane.
2. It would have been obvious to modify Fang and Chiou to include
the locking hook of Smith.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 10-12 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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

pgc