Ex Parte MacDougallDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613212650 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/212,650 08/18/2011 75750 7590 05/31/2016 ROBERT J. KAPALKA TYCO TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES 4550 NEW LINDEN HILL ROAD SUITE 140 WILMINGTON, DE 19808 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alan R. MACDOUGALL 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. DC-01585 (958-2514US) 6657 EXAMINER PATEL, HARSHAD C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN R. MACDOUGALL Appeal2014-009025 Application 13/212,650 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-20 and 22-25. In the Examiner's Answer the Examiner withdraws the rejections as to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 22 and 23 (Ans. 5). Hence, the claims before us are claims 8, 12-15, 17-20, 24 and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a communication assembly and system. Claim 8 is illustrative: 8. A communication assembly comprising: an electronic module package comprising an interposer with opposite board and module surfaces and an electronic Appeal2014-009025 Application 13/212,650 module mounted to the module surface, the electronic module package also including electrical contacts along the module surface that are communicatively coupled to the electronic module through the interposer; a connector receptacle comprising a receptacle housing coupled to the interposer, the receptacle housing defining a reception space that is located over and permits access to the electrical contacts; and a cable connector assembly comprising a flex cable and an electrical connector coupled to a mating end of the cable connector assembly, the electrical connector having connector contacts; wherein the connector receptacle is configured to receive the mating end within the reception space to electrically couple the electrical contacts and the connector contacts, the connector receptacle holding the electrical connector in a mated position, and wherein the connector receptacle also includes a retention device, the retention device comprising a movable actuator having a contoured head that includes first and second semi- circles comprising first and second radii, the first radius being shorter than the second radius, the actuator being rotatable about an axis that extends approximately perpendicular to the interposer between a locked position wherein the second radius prevents the electrical connector from being removed from the reception space and an unlocked position wherein the first radius allows the electrical connector to be removed from the reception space. Klatt Fjelstad The References US 6,176,724 Bl US 7,750,446 B2 The Rejections Jan.23,2001 July 6, 2010 The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 8, 12-15, 17 and 25 2 Appeal2014-009025 Application 13/212,650 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Fjelstad, claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fjelstad1 and claims 18-20 over Klatt in view of Fjelstad. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103 over Fjelstad We need address only the sole independent claim among claims 8, 12-15, 17, 24 and 25, i.e., claim 8.2 That claim requires an electrical connector (182) retention device (186) comprising an actuator (187) which is rotatable about an axis extending approximately perpendicularly to an interposer (122) (Figs. 2, 4). "Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Fjelstad discloses a circuit assembly (150) locking lever (155) which is rotatable about an axis parallel to a base circuit ( 141) (col. 7, 1. 54 - col. 8, 1. 43; Figs. 13-17). The Examiner asserts that Fjelstad's locking lever (155) is rotatable about an axis perpendicular to the base circuit (141) (Ans. 3). As shown particularly in Fjelstad's Figures 14, 15 and 17, the locking lever (155) is rotatable about an axis which is parallel, not approximately perpendicular, to the base circuit (141 ). 1 The Examiner erroneously omits this rejection from the statement of the rejections in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2). 2 In the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the Examiner does not set forth any obviousness rationale regarding the independent claim's limitations (Final Act. 13-14). 3 Appeal2014-009025 Application 13/212,650 Thus, we reverse the rejections over Fjelstad. Rejections over Klatt in view of Fjelstad Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Klatt discloses an adaptor (1) for connecting a mini card (2) to a personal computer, notebook, etc. (col. 4, 11. 15-18; Fig. 1). "For introducing, securing, and removing the mini card 2, the [adaptor 1 's] outer housing 3 is provided at its upper side with a window in the form of a rectangular cutout 11 into which a receiving frame 12 as a unitary plastic part is inserted" (col. 4, 11. 39--42; Fig. 1 ). The receiving frame (12) comprises mini card (2) securing elements and a locking/release device (13) (col. 4, 11. 42--44; Fig. 1 ). Fjelstad discloses "IC [integrated circuit] package structures comprised of standard IC packages [132a-d] modified with separate circuit interconnection structures [circuit elements 133-135] and disposed to interconnect either directly to other IC packages or to intermediate pedestal connectors [ 13 6] which serve to support and interconnect various circuit elements [133-135], thus effectively allowing critical signals to bypass the generally less capable interconnection paths [through the package or printed circuit board] within standard interconnection substrates" (Abstract; col. 1, 1. 60- col. 2, 1. 4; col. 7, 11. 54---63; Fig. 13). Each end of a circuit element (133-135) mates with an IC package (132a-d) via a connection secured by a locking lever (155) which forces circuit element contact pads 4 Appeal2014-009025 Application 13/212,650 downward, thereby providing contact force and contact wipe which increase the contact reliability (col. 8, 11. 10-43). The Examiner asserts that Fjelstad's locking lever (155)'s downward contact pad force which increases contact reliability (col. 8, 11. 10-43) "is fully adaptable to the device of Klatt" (Ans. 5) and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Fjelstad's circuit element (133-135) connector assembly in Klatt's adaptor (1) "to extend the electrical connection to an external device" (Final Act. 11 ). The Examiner does not address the differences between Klatt' s adapter ( 1) for securing a mini card (2) to a device such as a personal computer or a notebook and Fjelstad's device for securing circuit elements (133-135) between IC packages (132a-d) and establish that, regardless of those differences, the references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to use Fjelstad's device to secure Klatt's mini card (2). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection over Klatt in view of Fjelstad. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 8, 12-15, 17 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Fjelstad, claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fjelstad and claims 18- 20 over Klatt in view of Fjelstad are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation