Ex Parte Liao

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 7, 2009

11294191 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO
____________

Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 7, 2009
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 5-8, and 10-15.1 (App. Br. 10). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been canceled. (Appeal Brief filed January 14,
2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 4). Neither Appellants nor the Examiner
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

2
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant describes an electrical connector, which is said to protect
terminals from being damaged during transport. (Spec. [0001]). Claim 13,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
13. An electrical connector comprising:
an insulative housing having a base defining a top mating
interface thereof,
a plurality of terminals disposed in the housing and
having upper connecting portions with at distal ends thereof
upper mating sections essentially extending upwardly from the
top mating interface;
the upper connecting portions of at least two adjacent
terminals in a same row having projections thereof, from a top
view, at least partly overlapped;
a floating cover mounted above the top mating interface
of the base and being movable up and down, the floating cover
defining at least one slot therethrough and extending in a row
direction along which, from a top view, the whole upper
connecting portions essentially direct to, said slot configured to
allow the upper mating section of the terminal to move relative
to the floating cover not only in a vertical direction but also in
the row direction; wherein said at least one slot each is
configured to compactly and constrainedly receive the upper
mating sections of the at least two adjacent terminals in said
same row.

THE REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

indicate the status of claim 9. However, claim 9 appears to have been
canceled in the Amendment dated November 24, 2006. Thus, claim 9 is not
before us on appeal.
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

3
Busacco US 5,248,262 Sep. 28, 1993
Hamren US 6,459,288 B2 Oct. 1, 2002
Koopman US 6,585,527 B2 Jul. 1, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5-8, and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koopman in view of Hamren and
Busacco.

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that an electrical connector having a floating cover with at least
one slot as claimed would have been obvious over Koopman, Hamren, and
Busacco?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner found that Koopman discloses substantially the
same electrical connector as claimed except for a floating cover.
(Examiner’s Answer entered May 13, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3).
2. The Examiner found that Hamren describes a floating cover (240)
defining at least one slot (254) and extending in a row direction.
(Ans. 3-4; Hamren, Fig. 5).
3. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form
the connector assembly of Koopman with a floating cover as
taught by Hamren to protect the terminals when the connector is
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

4
not in use and provide a resilient seating for the mating device.
(Ans. 4).
4. The Examiner found that Koopman as modified by Hamren does
not disclose a slot configured for receiving a row of terminals.
(Ans. 4).
5. The Examiner found that Busacco discloses a cover (11a) with a
plurality of slots (65). (Ans. 4 and 8; Busacco, col. 5, ll. 3-16, Fig.
1).
6. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form
the slot configured for receiving a row of terminals to maintain
structural strength. (Ans. 4 and 8).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR, the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen a work is available in
one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
It is well established that “it is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition,
“[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973) (emphasis in original).
In responding to a prima facie case of obviousness, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

5
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).

ANALYSIS
Appellant has grouped claims 13 and 14, 7-12, and 2, 5, 6, and 15
separately. However, Appellant relies on similar arguments for the groups
of claims. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 13,
which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by
Appellant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).2
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s reasons for combining
Koopman, Hamren, and Busacco. Rather, Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in not according patentable weight to the functional
language “at least one slot each is configured to compactly and constrainedly
receive the upper mating sections of the at least two adjacent terminals in
said same row” recited in claim 13. (App. Br. 11-12). However, Appellant
has not adequately explained what structural features are imparted to the
slots by such functional language. Further, Appellant has not addressed the
Examiner’s finding that “Busacco teaches the use of a cover (11a) with a
plurality of slots (65) compactly and constrainedly receiving at least two
adjacent terminals.” (Ans. 8). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant’s remaining arguments focus on the individual disclosure of
Hamren and Busacco rather than the combination of references as a whole.

2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

6
Specifically, Appellant argues that element (254) of Hamren is not a narrow
slot for compactly and constrainedly receiving the upper mating sections of
two adjacent terminals in the same row, but a huge opening for receiving the
whole matrix type contacts, not for a row of contacts. (App. Br. 11).
Appellant argues that the upper connecting portions of Busacco do not
extend in a row direction as required in the claims, but extend in a direction
perpendicular to the row direction. (App. Br. 12-13). Appellant further
contends that the prior art cannot be combined to obtain the connector
recited in the claims because upper part (11a) of Busacco relied on by the
Examiner as a cover is not designed for up and down movement, and
treating the upper part (11a) as a floating cover teaches away from the
purposes of Busacco and would produce an inoperable device. (App. Br. 13-
14).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Busacco is not relied upon
for using the upper part (11a) as a floating cover, but to form the floating
cover of Hamren having element (254) with a plurality of slots. (Ans. 10).
Further, the Examiner relies on Koopman and Hamren for the structure of
the upper connecting portions. (Ans. 7 and 9). Appellants have not
presented any persuasive evidence that fitting the floating cover of Hamren
as applied to the connector of Koopman with the slots of Busacco to arrive
at the claimed connector would have been beyond the skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner reversibly erred
in determining that an electrical connector having a floating cover with at
Appeal 2009-002699
Application 11/294,191

7
least one slot as claimed would have been obvious over Koopman, Hamren,
and Busacco.

ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 5-8, and 10-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koopman in view of
Hamren and Busacco.
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)(v).
AFFIRMED

cam

WEI TE CHUNG
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1650 MEMOREX DRIVE
SANTA CLARA CA 95050