Ex Parte Leonard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 19, 2002

08866395 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 2002)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RUSSELL J. LEONARD and MICHAEL J. GARDNER
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative
Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
This invention relates to an electrical connector having ESD
and EMI protection. On page 6 of Appellants’ specification,
Appellants disclose that figure 3 shows a shielded electrical
connector, which includes a dielectric housing 24. The
dielectric housing has a forward mating end 26 and a rearward end
28. On page 7 of the specification, Appellants disclose that the
shielded electrical connector has a front ESD shield 58.
Appellants disclose that the front ESD shield 58 is about the
exterior of the forward mating end 26 of the dielectric housing.
We note that figure 3 shows that the front ESD shield 58 is about
the exterior of a substantial portion of the forward mating end
26. On pages 8 and 9 of the specification, Appellants disclose
that the front ESD shield 58 which is positioned about the
exterior of at least a substantial portion of forward mating end
26 operates to dissipate electrostatic discharges from the mating
plug connector 16 as well as any electrical discharges from the
power terminals of the plug connector. Appellants further
disclose that the front ESD shield will also dissipate any
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
Independent claims 1 and 23 are reproduced as follows
1. A shielded electrical connector, comprising:
a dielectric housing having a forward mating end and a
rearward end;
a front ESD shield about the exterior of at least a
substantial portion of the forward mating end of the dielectric
housing;
a rear EMI shield about the exterior of at least a
substantial portion of the rearward end of the dielectric
housing; and
wherein the front ESD shield is electrically isolated from
the rear EMI shield by an outwardly projecting portion of the
dielectric housing physically separating the shields.
23. A shielded electrical connector assembly, comprising:
a receptacle connector including a dielectric housing having
a forward mating end and a shield about the exterior of at least
a portion of the forward mating end of the dielectric housing;
a plug connector including a dielectric housing having a
forward mating end insertable into the forward mating end of the
housing of the receptacle connector, and a peripheral metal
shield about the exterior of at least a portion of the dielectric
housing of the plug connector; and
complementary interengaging latch means between the
peripheral metal shield of the plug connector and the dielectric
housing of the receptacle connector isolating the peripheral
metal shield of the plug connector from the shield at the forward
mating end of the receptacle connector.
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
REFERENCES
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Dixon et al. (Dixon) 4,894,026 Jan. 16, 1990
Shibano 5,035,652 Jul. 30, 1991
Kawai et al. (Kawai) 4,983,127 Jan. 8, 1991
Yagi et al. (Yagi) 5,562,497 Oct. 8, 1996
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai.
Claims 3 and 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai and
further in view of Shibano.
Claims 11 and 15 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai and
further in view of Yagi.
Claims 19 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai and further in
view of Yagi and Shibano.
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or Examiner,
we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review, we do not agree with the Examiner
that claims 1 through 11 and 15 through 22 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 3 of the final rejection, the Examiner agrees that
the front shield of the Dixon connector does not extend about a
substantial portion of the forward mating end of the housing as
recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The Examiner points to Kawai for
a front shield extending about a substantial portion of the
forward mating end of the housing. The Examiner then states that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the Dixon front shield could be enlarged slightly as taught
by Kawai, to extend about a substantial portion of the forward
mating end. The Examiner states that such a modification might
be made to enhance the EMI shielding qualities of the shield. In
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
regard to the other independent claim, claim 11, the Examiner
states on page 5 of the final rejection that the Examiner is
relying on the same reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
On pages 14 through 16 of the brief, Appellants argue that
there is no reason to modify the front shield of Dixon with the
teaching of Kawai. Appellants point out on page 16 of the appeal
brief that the primary purpose for the forward external shield
recited in representative claims 1 and 11 is to provide structure
to prevent electrostatic discharge (ESD) from damaging the
connector and its associated circuitry. Appellants argue on page
2 of the reply brief that one of the problems that Dixon sought
to solve was to prevent the EMI shield to act as an antenna.
Appellants point to column 3, lines 33-44. Appellants argue that
by suggesting that the external forward shield of Kawai can
simply be added to the internal shield of Dixon, the Examiner is
adding additional structure at the external forward face of the
Dixon connector that would act as an antenna to radiate, rather
than suppress, EMI. Appellants argue that the modification
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977, F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
We find that the Examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness. In particular, the Examiner has not
provided us any objective evidence as to how one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified the Dixon internal shield
26. In column 6, lines 32 through 39, Dixon teaches that the
housing 22 is constructed to receive a generally annular
conductive internal shield 26 which is dimensioned to
substantially surround the pin reserving contact portion of
terminals 24 and provide appropriate EMI shielding at the
interface between the terminal 24 of the miniature DIN connector
20 and the corresponding pin terminals of a mateable DIN plug.
In column 6, lines 39 through 42, Dixon teaches that the annular
internal shield 26 is provided with a ground contact 28 which
permits the internal shield 26 to be grounded to a circuit board
on which the subject DIN connector 20 is mountable.
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
the forward mating end of the dielectric housing. Furthermore,
we fail to find anything in either Dixon or Kawai that would have
suggested it is beneficial to modify the Dixon internal shield 26
to enhance the EMI shielding qualities. In fact, Dixon teaches
that the most effective EFI suppression can be attained by
providing a direct connection between the external shield 32 and
the shield of a DIN connector plug which is mated with the
miniature circular DIN connector 20. See Dixon, column 10, lines
47 through 52.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai. Furthermore we note
that the Examiner relies on the same reasoning in the rejection
of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai in
view of Yagi. Therefore we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 11 and dependent claims 15 through 18 for the same reasons
as above. Furthermore for the rejection of claims 3 and 6 through 10
as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai and further in
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
unpatentable over Dixon in view of Kawai and further in view of
Yagi and Shibano, we note that the Examiner also relies on the
same reasoning as discussed above. Therefore we will not sustain
these rejections as well. In view of the foregoing, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting, claims 1 through 11
and 15 through 22.
REVERSED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0110
Application 08/866,395
Charles S. Cohen
Patent Counsel
Molex Incorporated
2222 Wellington Court
Lisle IL, 60532