Ex Parte Miyachi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 30, 2003

09570123 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 30, 2003)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte AKIRO MIYACHI, MASAHI SETO, KAZUHIRO SHIMADA,
HIDEO TAMURA, and KENJI WATANABE
_____________
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, LIEBERMAN, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 18, which are
all of the claims pending in the present application.
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
2
1. A connector assembly, comprising:

a multi-part housing for mating with a complementary
connecting device, including
a first housing part of a first, resilient plastic
material and including a resilient latch portion for
latching engagement with the complementary connecting
device; and
a second housing part of a second plastic material
having less resiliency than said first plastic material and
including a cavity for receiving and retaining an operative
component of the connector assembly.
PRIOR ART REFERENCES
In support of his rejection, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Chihara 5,307,435 Apr. 26, 1994
Kyomasu et al. (Kyomasu) 5,684,903 Nov. 4, 1997
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Chihara and
Kyomasu.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and appellants in support of their respective positions.
This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103
rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
3
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Brief. We add the following primarily
for emphasis.
The examiner finds that Chihara teaches a connector assembly
having a main body (11) corresponding to the claimed first
housing and a sleeve supporter (13) corresponding to the claimed
second housing. See the Answer, pages 3 and 5. According to the
examiner (Id.), the main body (11) made of a rigid plastic
material is more resilient than the sleeve supporter (13) made of
a metal, such as stainless steel and Permalloy. The examiner
recognizes that the main body (11) does not include the claimed
resilient latch and the sleeve supporter (13) is not made of a
plastic material having less resiliency than that of the main
body made of a plastic material. See the Answer, page 3.
To remedy the above deficiencies in Chihara, the examiner
relies on the disclosure of Kyomasu. Kyomasu teaches a connector
assembly having a holding section (20) having a latch means (20a,
20b and 20c) corresponding to the claimed first housing having a
resilient latch and a case (10) corresponding to the claimed
second housing. Kyomasu teaches the advantage of employing a
latch means (20a, 20b and 20c) in the holding section (20) to fix
a ferrule within the connector assembly, thus suggesting the
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
4
desirability of the incorporating of the latch means in the main
body of the connector assembly of the type described in Chihara.
See Kyomasu, column 8, lines 51-65.
However, we find no suggestion or motivation to construct
Chihara’s sleeve supporter with a plastic material less resilient
than the one used to form the main body of Chihara. As argued by
the appellants (Brief, page 3), Chihara employs a metal to
construct its sleeve supporter so that its device 17 can be
welded thereto. See column 3, line 18. Kyomasu does not teach
that its plastic material used to form the case (second housing
corresponding to the sleeve supporter) is useful for the welding
purpose. See Kyomasu in its entirety. Nor does Kyomasu
recognize the importance of constructing the case (second
housing) with a plastic material which is less resilient than
that used to construct the holding section (first housing). See
Kyomasu in its entirety. Kyomasu teaches that the case (second
housing) and the holding section (first housing) are made of a
liquid crystal polymer and sometimes, the holding section (second
housing) may be made of polycarbonate. See column 8, line 66 to
column 9, line 2. Kyomasu never indicates that these polymers
(plastics) have the claimed resiliency requirements, much less
different resiliency requirements.
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
5
It follows that the applied prior art references as a whole
would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to construct
Chihara’s sleeve supporter with a plastic material having less
resiliency than that used to construct Chihara’s main body, with
a reasonable expectation of successfully using such plastic
material for the welding purpose. To utilize such plastic
material to construct Chihara’s sleeve supporter would destroy
the invention on which Chihara is based. Ex parte Hartmann,
186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App. 1974).
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
6
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
such, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PAUL LIEBERMAN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:hh
Appeal No. 2003-1193
Application No. 09/570,123
7
MOLEX, INC.
2222 WELLINGTON CT.
LISLE, IL 60532