Ex Parte Milbrand Jr. et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201813671096 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/671,096 11/07/2012 23628 7590 08/30/2018 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 ATLANTIC A VENUE BOSTON, MA 02210-2206 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Donald W. Milbrand Jr. 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. A0863.70051US01 5198 EXAMINER FIGUEROA, FELIX 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONALD W. MILBRAND JR., PRESCOTT B. ATKINSON, and BRIAN KIRK Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-20 of Application 13/671,096 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. (Jan. 25, 2016) 2-11. Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 1 Amphenol Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 BACKGROUND The present application generally relates to a cable connector having staggered (offset) ports so as to reduce crosstalk and prevent incorrect insertion of the plug into a receptacle. Spec., Abstract. A figure showing staggered (offset) ports is reproduced below. Figure 7 A is a schematic illustration of a profile of the mating faces of a receptacle 220 and a plug 150 according to one embodiment of the invention. Spec. ,r,r 23, 89. Claim 1 is reproduced below with certain language bolded for emphasis: 1. A receptacle adapted for mounting to a printed circuit board, the receptacle being configured to receive a member inserted in an insertion direction, and the receptacle comprising: a housing, the housing comprising a first portion with a first cavity and a second portion with a second cavity, the first cavity being bounded by a first surface and an opposing second surface, and the second cavity being bounded by a third surface and an opposing fourth surface; a first plurality of conductive elements, a second plurality of conductive elements, a third plurality of conductive elements, and a fourth plurality of conductive elements, each conductive element of the first, second, third and fourth pluralities of conductive elements comprising a tail adapted for attachment to the printed circuit board, a mating contact portion 2 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 and an intermediate portion coupling the tail to the mating contact portion, wherein: the mating contact portions of the first plurality of conductive elements are disposed along the first surface of the first cavity; the mating contact portions of the second plurality of conductive elements are disposed along the second surface of the first cavity; the mating contact portions of the third plurality of conductive elements are disposed along the third surface of the second cavity; the mating contact portions of the fourth plurality of conductive elements are disposed along the fourth surface of the second cavity; the first portion is offset, relative to the second portion, in the insertion direction. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). REJECTION The Examiner maintains the following rejection: 1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fogg et al. 2 in view of Solymar et al. 3 Final Act. 2-11. DISCUSSION The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Fogg in view of Solymar. Id. at 2-11. Fogg teaches an improved mating connection for high-density electrical connectors. Fogg, 1: 15-16. The connector taught by 2 US 6,582,244 B2, issued June 24, 2003 ("Fogg"). 3 US 5,166,527, issued Nov. 24, 1992 ("Solymar"). 3 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 Fogg is described as an improvement over prior art D-shaped connection interfaces in which the "trapezoidal shape provides a polarizing feature, that is, prevents mismating about the axial line, [but has the disadvantage that] it widens the profile in side-to-side spacing between adjacent connectors. That is, the jackscrews and corresponding openings must be wide enough to clear the end walls of the shroud." Id. at 1:53-58. Fogg teaches an electrical connector that is polarized (asymmetrical such that it may be inserted in only one way) but is also more compact than D-shaped connectors. 270 254 I 272 ' 0 1( ........... )l .I t,:82 276j/ .· ·r2so i. 2so~.. J/ n 1 l ·~-... -.. -~· ....... \-n-.... -.... -. --n-· -.. -::Jr \:?i-2s2 274 Fogg, Fig. 12 is a front view of the receptacle taught by Fogg. Id. at 3:34-35. The secondary reference, Solymar, describes a lamp for use in water purifiers. Solymar, Abstract. Solymar describes a problem with prior art lamps that "[i]n the humid, moisture-laden environment of a water purifier, electrical arcing between the pairs of terminal pins sometimes occurs at supply voltages as low as 40 volts. Such arcing short-circuits the electrodes and reduces the working lifetime of the lamp." Solymar, 1 :34--39. To reduce such arcing, Solymar teaches that, "[i]n accordance with this invention, the pairs of pins are offset relative to each other along the 4 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 longitudinal axis. This offset resists the formation of an electrical arc between the pairs of pins exteriorly of the arc tube, especially in the presence of the moisture-laden, humid environment of the water purifier." Id. at 2: 11-17. This is shown in Figure 2, reproduced below. Figure 2 of Solymar is a perspective view of one end of the lamp. Id. at 2:52-53. The figure shows pins 48 and 50 offset from pins 52 and 54. Id. at 4:31-33. The Examiner determined that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to form the connector of Fogg modified so as to have a first portion offset from a second portion in the insertion direction as taught by Solymar "in order to polarize and simplify completion of the connection." Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that this is in error because 1) Solymar is not analogous art, and 2) there is inadequate reason to combine the references. Appeal Br. 7. Analogous Art Appellants contend that Solymar is not analogous art to the present application. Appeal Br. 10-11. In determining whether a reference is 5 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 analogous art, we consider "(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." Id. at 659. Here, Solymar is titled "Ultraviolet Lamp for Use in Water Purifiers." The Examiner contends that the true advance of Solymar "is not an ultraviolet lamp, nor a water purifier, but rather a plug and socket connector arrangement." Answer 3. Accordingly, the Examiner determines, "Solymar is in the field of Appellant's endeavor, i.e. plug and receptacle electrical connectors." Id. at 3. We do not find this persuasive. Solymar's field of endeavor is lamps. This differs from the present Specification which states that it "relates generally to electrical interconnection systems and more specifically to interconnections between cables and circuit assemblies." Spec. ,r 2. It is true that electric lamps must include electrical connections of some sort. Nonetheless, electric lamps and interconnections between cables and circuit assemblies would not be considered to be in the same field of endeavor. The Examiner further contends that Solymar is pertinent to the problem addressed by the inventors. Id. The particular problem addressed by the Application is the reduction of crosstalk and the prevention of incorrect insertion of the plug into the receptacle. Spec., Abstract. The Examiner finds that the plug and receptacle arrangement of Solymar 6 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 similarly prevents incorrect insertion. Answer 3--4. While the Examiner's finding has some force of reason, it is not supported by citation to evidence of record. Nor does Solymar include an explicit teaching that its arrangement prevents incorrect insertion. Accordingly, whether or not Solymar is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the Applicants is a close question. We need not, however, definitively resolve such question at this point in view of our analysis below regarding reason to combine. Reason to Combine Appellants additionally argue that, even if Solymar were analogous art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to combine the teachings of Fogg and Solymar. Appeal Br. 11-15. The Examiner finds that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the offset of Solymar with the connector of Fogg "in order to polarize and simplify completion of the connection." Id. at 12 (citing Final Act. 4 ). In making such finding, the Examiner relies upon "knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art." Final Act. 12; Answer 5. The Examiner additionally asserts that the offset of Solymar allows for proper connection only of a mating connector with a matching profile and that such arrangement (polarization) simplifies completion of the correct connection. Answer 5. Appellants assert that this is in error for several reasons. They argue that the connector of Fogg is already polarized and there is no need to polarize it further. Id. at 12. Appellants additionally argue that Solymar is directed to remediating electrical arcing in a humid environment and that it provides no teaching to polarize or simplify completion of connections. Id. 7 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 Appellants additionally address the Examiner's determination that modifying the connector of Fogg simplifies completion of connections. Appellants contend that the proposed modification would not have been recognized as a simplification because the same number of mating contacts would be aligned and engaged, such that there are no lesser requirements related to completing the connection. Id. at 13. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As noted, the connector of Fogg is already polarized. See Answer 4 ("the D-shape of Fogg polarizes the connector to D-shape mating counterparts"). Similarly, the Examiner does not set forth any persuasive basis to find that a connector having a polarized shroud and an offset connection is simpler to connect than one with only a polarized shroud. Accordingly, the Examiner has not forth a persuasive motivation to combine the offset of Solymar with the connection of Fogg. We further note that, in the "Response to Arguments" section of the Final Action, the Examiner makes reference to two prior art references, Saito (US 6,666,708) and Fabian et al. (US 5,971,784), indicated to "disclose receptacles/connectors with a first portion being offset from a second portion in the insertion direction." Final Act. 12. As such references were not formally applied, we do not consider them in connection with the present rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970); see also MPEP 706.02(j) (9th ed., Rev. 08, 2017). 8 Appeal2017-008477 Application 13/671,096 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-20 as obvious over Fogg in view of Solymar is reversed. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation