Ex Parte Mickievicz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2004

09498268 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2004)

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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT K. MICKIEVICZ,
DAVID W. HELSTER, GEORGE R. DEFIBAUGH
and
LYNN ROBERT SIPE
_______

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268
_______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before THOMAS, FLEMING and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1
through 6. The examiner has allowed claim 8, but has objected to claim 7.

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

2
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
An electrical connector comprising:

a common housing having grooves, circuit boards carried by the housing, the circuit
boards having edges that are disposed in the grooves, the circuit boards extending parallel to
each other in spaced-apart relationship, each of the circuit boards including a substrate and
conductive tracks integrally formed on the substrate, the conductive tracks providing electrical
paths through the connector, the electrical paths extending from a mating interface at one end of
the connector to a mounting interface at another end of the connector.

The following reference is relied on by the examiner:

Paagman 6,083,047 July 4, 2000
(filed Jan. 16, 1997)

Claims 1 through 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Paagman.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Paagman alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is made to
the Brief (no reply brief has been filed) and to the Answer for the respective positions thereof.

OPINION
We sustain both stated rejections of the claims on appeal. As noted at page 3 of the Brief,
claims 1 through 6 stand together. We note also that no arguments are presented in the argument

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

3
portion of the Brief as to any claim other than independent claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, we
confine our remarks to representative independent claim 1 on appeal as do both parties.
We sustain the rejections for the reasons set forth by the examiner as outlined briefly in
the statement of the rejections at page 3 of the Answer and embellished upon in the examiner’s
responsive arguments at page 4. We are not persuaded that appellants’ arguments at pages 3
through 5 of the Brief present persuasive arguments that distinguish the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal over the teachings and showings as argued by the
examiner as to Paagman.
The initial showing of various portions of figure 1 of Paagman does not include the claim
requirement of the common housing having grooves. On the other hand, the examiner correctly
points out that the showing in various portions of figure 10 does show a connecter housing 70
having respective top grooves 73 and shorter bottom grooves 77.
The printed circuit board assembly 1 in the various showings in figure 1 takes various
forms such as the printed circuit board module 30 in figure 2 comprising individual printed
circuit boards 31. Various portions of Paagman consider printed circuit board 31 also as a
substrate material. In any event, appellants’ own specification relies upon the prior art’s
knowledge of what comprises a printed circuit board having a substrate and various conductive
tracks thereon as noted at page 4 of the specification as filed.
Of interest is the printed circuit assembly in figure 2 as shown in the various portions of
figure 6 as comprising an insulative cover 56. As discussed beginning at the bottom of column 5

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

4
through column 8 in Paagman, the cover 56 includes upper locating and mounting ribs 65 in the
form of dovetail ribs as well as shorter mounting and locating ribs 66 on its bottom. Since the
cover contains this claimed circuit board as well as the respective ribs attached thereto, the cover
56 is considered by the examiner to comprise the claimed circuit boards with their respective
grooves allowing them to mate with the grooves of the housing. Figure 7, as well, shows an
assembled terminal module formed of a printed circuit board assembly as in figure 2, including
the cover shown in figure 6. The showings in figure 7 include the upper locating mounting rib
65 as well as the lower mounting rib 66 in addition to the substrate/printed circuit board 31 and
the corresponding printed circuit board module 30 in its entirety mounted within the cover 56.
Additionally, it is very clearly shown here that contact terminals 34 provide a mating interface
for the various shown electrical pads, where the contact terminals 34 are located at one end of the
connector which are connected to the mounting interface of the claim, that is, the connector
mounting terminals 35/37 at the other end of the connector. Figure 9 is also illustrative.
Connector housing 70 in the various portions of figure 7 comprises grooves 73, 77 as
indicated earlier. Various circuit board modules/assemblies 30 are presented in mirror image
form in figure 12 along the narrow image line L as a part of the cover 56. Figure 15, for
example, shows the completed arrangement in an apparent end view format where the dovetail
ribs 65, 65 ' meet the grooves 73, 77 of the housing 70.

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

5
It appears clear to us that the printed circuit module assembly 30/cover 56 comprises the
printed circuit boards of the claims on appeal in accordance with the examiner’s arguments.
Plural of these elements extend in a parallel manner to each other in spaced apart relationship
when placed within the housing 70, as claimed.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive that the cover 56/circuit board assembly 30 in
Paagman do not comprise the claimed circuit boards. Clearly, this position is misplaced since
they clearly are taught and shown in Paagman to comprise or include printed circuit boards per
se. We therefore agree with the examiner’s views expressed at page 4 of the answer that the
cover is not necessarily to be considered to be separate apart from the printed circuit boards
therein themselves. Appellants’ claim limitations in claim 1 do not otherwise exclude the
examiner’s interpretation of what a circuit board may comprise, or present any arguments that
the artisan will not so consider them consistent with the examiner’s views. As noted by the
examiner at the bottom of page 4 of the Answer, “Applicant has not indicated any claimed
limitations that are not met by Paagman.”
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting various claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT:psb

Appeal No. 2003-1232
Application No. 09/498,268

7
Tyco Technology Resources
4550 New Linden Hill Road
Suite 450
Wilmington, DE 19808-2952