Ex Parte Ma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2009

11479809 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HAO-YUN MA
__________

Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 14, 2009
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant discloses electrical connectors for electrically connecting a
chip package to an electrical substrate (Spec. ¶¶ [0001], [0006]).

Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative:
1. An electrical connector comprising:

a socket body defining a mating surface and a number of
passageways extending through the mating surface, and

a plurality of contacts received in the corresponding
passageways,

each contact including a base portion, a pair of arm sections
extending from two opposite lateral sides of the base portion, and a
contacting end forming at a free end of the arm section; wherein

the contacting end extends upwardly and outwardly beyond the
mating surface of the socket body.

7. An electrical connector comprising:

an insulative body defining a plurality of passageways therein;

a plurality of contacts disposed in the corresponding
passageways, respectively, a contact portions of each of said contacts
extending above an upper face of the body;

a cover seated upon the body and defining therein a plurality of
passages in alignment with the corresponding passageways,
respectively; wherein

the passage includes an upper narrow section receiving a pin,
and a lower wide section receiving both said pin and the
corresponding contact portion which are engaged with each other;
wherein

an upper free end of each of the contact portion is downwardly
spaced from the upper narrow section of the corresponding passage in
a vertical direction along which the pin extends.

2
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:

Houtz US 6,899,548 B2 May 31, 2005

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Houtz.
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 7. Dependent claims 4-6
stand or fall with claim 1; and dependent claims 8-11 stand or fall with claim
7.

Claim 1
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Houtz discloses a contact having “a pair of arm sections extending from
two opposite lateral sides of the base portion” as recited in claim 1? We
decide this issue in the negative.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The applicant bears the procedural burden of showing error in the
Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness”)
(citation and internal quote omitted).
Claims are given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The
3
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but rather
upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
While the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, it is improper
to read limitations into the claims. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).

FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a pair of arm sections extending
from two opposite lateral sides of the base portion.” This particular
feature is illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 2 where a contact (30) is
shown having a base 300 from which arms (302) extend on opposite,
lateral sides of the base to form extending arms (304) with contacting
ends (305).
2. The Specification describes that the contact 30 has a pair of arm
sections 302 extending from two opposite lateral sides of the base
portion 300 (Spec. ¶ [0016]).
3. The Specification further indicates that “[a]lthough the present
invention has been described with reference to particular
embodiments, it is not to be construed as being limited thereto” (Spec.
¶ [0022]).
4. As shown on page 4 and explained on page 3 of the Answer, the
Examiner finds that Houtz discloses arms (1175A and 1175B) that
extend from lateral sides of the base of terminals (1175) (Ans. 3-4).
4
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

5. Houtz discloses that the terminals 1175 have a dual beam
configuration for receiving blade contacts of the plug (col. 3, ll. 60-67;
col. 4, ll. 32-46).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the “pair of arms” feature should be construed
to require that the contacting surfaces are arranged in a face-to-face
arrangement, which is contrary to Houtz’s offset dual beam configured
terminals (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends that the offset dual beam
configured terminals apply a torque to the blade connectors unlike
Appellant’s claimed invention (App. Br. 10).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they are directed to
features that are not in the claims. Specifically, the “face-to-face”
arrangement of the contact ends is not recited in the claims. Moreover, “a
pair of arms sections extending from two opposite lateral sides of the base
portion” does not exclude having an offset configuration as argued by
Appellant. Rather, the Examiner’s construction of the disputed claim phrase
as including arms formed from two laterally opposite sides of the contact in
an offset configuration is reasonable in light of the Specification. Indeed the
Specification while describing a face-to-face arm arrangement, further
indicates that the invention is not limited thereto (FF 2 & 3).
Accordingly, while the claims are read in light of the Specification,
we decline Appellant’s invitation to read limitations from the Specification
into the claims.
5
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

Because the Examiner’s construction is reasonable and consistent with
the Specification, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-6
over Houtz.

Claim 7
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Houtz teaches “an upper free end of each of the contact portion is
downwardly spaced from the upper narrow section of the corresponding
passage in a vertical direction along which the pin extends” as recited in
claim 7? We decide this issue in the negative.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We rely on the principles of law noted above in our analysis of the
claim 1 rejection.

ADDITIONAL FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
6. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Houtz’s upper
free end of the terminal 1175 is downwardly spaced from at the least
the top part of the upper narrow section (App. Br. 10-12). Appellant
concedes that Houtz’s terminal 1175 overlaps the upper narrow
section of the receptacle housing 1150 leading to the terminal 1175
(App. Br. 11).
7. Appellant’s Figure 5 of the Specification shows the through hole 402
(i.e., the upper narrow section) spaced from the upper free end 305 of
the contact 30.
6
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the “upper free end” feature requires that the
entire upper free end of the contact be downwardly spaced from the entire
upper narrow section (App. Br. 11). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
construction of the disputed claim phrase as including Houtz’s overlapping
arrangement of the free end and the upper narrow section is not reasonable
(App. Br. 11).
However, as with claim 1, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive
because they are directed to features not in the claims. The disputed claim
feature does not require that the entire upper free end be downwardly spaced
from the upper narrow section. Though the Specification includes an
embodiment where the entire upper free end is downwardly spaced from the
upper narrow section, the claims are not limited to that embodiment (FF 7).
Accordingly, we decline Appellant’s invitation to read limitations from the
Specification into the claims.
Instead, properly giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner
that the upper free end of the contact downwardly spaced from the upper
narrow section claim feature reasonably includes Houtz’s disclosure of the
upper free end of the terminal that is downwardly spaced from a portion of
the upper narrow section. Indeed, the Specification indicates that it is not to
be construed as being limited to the disclosed embodiments (i.e., where the
entire upper free end is downwardly spaced from the upper narrow section)
(FF 3).
7
Appeal 2009-001655
Application 11/479,809

Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 7-11
over Houtz.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-11 over
Houtz.
ORDER
The 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).

AFFIRMED

ssl

WEI TE CHUNG
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1650 MEMOREX DRIVE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
8