Ex Parte Mueller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 4, 201814324701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/324,701 07/07/2014 Mark Anthony Mueller LEAR 52795 PUSP 5988 34007 7590 01/08/2018 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /T FAR TORPOR ATTON EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER VU, HIEN D TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2018 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): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK ANTHONY MUELLER, DAVID A. HEIN, ARIC HENDERSON ANGLIN, and MARY MUELLER Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, AVELYN M. ROSS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed July 7, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from dated February 10, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 11, 2016 (Appeal Br.), and the Examiner’s Answer dated November 22, 2016 (“Ans.”). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lear Corporation, the assignee of the above-captioned application. Appeal Br. 3. 3 Claims 7, 10, and 13 were cancelled by amendment on July 11, 2016. Ans. 2. The Examiner entered the amendment on September 19, 2016. Id. Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to an electrical terminal assembly having the terminal welded to the wire in order to “allow the power cord to operate at higher temperature[s] and higher efficiencies.” Spec. 119. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electrical terminal assembly comprising: at least one blade having a distal end sized to be received within an electrical outlet; a lug provided on a proximal end of the at least one blade; a wire in electrical communication with a vehicle charger, the wire being welded to the lug; wherein the wire is engaged to the lug; wherein the wire is welded to the lug; and weld adhering the wire to the lug. Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1 (“Claims App’x”). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains4 the following rejections: A. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iijima5 in view of Saka.6 Final Act. 2. 4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite (Ans. 2). 5 Makato Iijima, US 4,790,776, issued December 13, 1988 (“Iijima”). 6 Saka, et al., US 6,851,956 B2, issued February 8, 2005 (“Saka”). 2 Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 B. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over Iijima in view of Saka, and further in view of Lambird.7 Id. at 3. C. Claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Ito.8 Id. Appellants request our reversal of Rejections A-C. See generally Appeal Br. Appellants argue claims 1 and 14 (Rejections A and C) and do not present additional arguments in support of patentability for the remaining claims (claim 12, 15, 19, and 20). Id. Therefore, we address the claims identified by Appellants to resolve the issues on appeal and the remaining claim will stand or fall with the argued claims. OPINION Rejection A — Obviousness (claim 1) The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Iijima in view of Saka. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Iijima teaches an electrical terminal having a blade and a wire engaged to a lug. Id. at 3. The Examiner reasons that using a weld to adhere the wire to the lug would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art because such a method of adhesion was “old and well known in the art to better secure the wire to the blade” as taught by Saka. Id. Appellants argue that the combination of Iijima and Saka fails to teach welding a wire to a lug on a blade and, thus, fails to make out a prima facie 7 Lambird et al., US 2010/0094737 Al, published April 15, 2010 (“Lambird”). 8 Yuichi Ito, US 2015/0140873 Al, published May 21, 2015 (“Ito”). 3 Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 6—7. Rather, according to Appellants, Saka “discloses a wire wl, connected to pinch blades 20a via welded part Y.” Id. at 6. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the only teaching of adhering a wire to the lug with a weld is found in Appellants’ Specification. Id. at 7. Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error by the Examiner. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See id. at 417. Here, the Examiner relies on Iijima to provide nearly all of the structural features of the electrical terminal assembly, including the at least one blade, a lug provided on the proximal end of the blade, and a wire engaged to the lug as required by the claims. Final Act 2—3; see also Ans. 2— 3. The Examiner uses the teachings of Saka as evidence that adhering the wire to the lug by welding was known in the art. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that use of a weld to secure wires is “old and well known 4 Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 in the art to better secure the wire to the blade.” Id. In this regard, Saka explains that “the wire end is welded to the pinch blades, [so that] a more reliable electrical connection is established that eliminates the need for a protective cover to be placed over the connection.” Saka, col. 4,11. 7—8. Therefore, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis for one skilled artisan to secure the wires of Iijima by welding to either of the blades or the lug on the end of a blade in order to establish a secure connection as taught by Saka. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of a harmful error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions which are supported by the record. Rejection C— Obviousness (claims 14, 15, 19, and 20) Independent claim 14 recites a method of manufacturing an electrical terminal that is substantially the same as the electrical terminal assembly of claim 1. Compare Claims App’x 1, claim 1, with claim 14. Claim 14 additionally requires: (1) forming one of a lug and a pair of crimp tabs . . . ; (2) providing a wire in engagement with the lug or between the pair of crimp tabs; [and] (3) adhering the wire to the lug or the pair of crimp tabs with a weld.” Claims App’x 1. The Examiner finds that forming a weld to adhere a wire to a corresponding pair of crimp tabs would have been obvious to one skilled in the art because such a modification is “old and well known in the art to better secure the wire to the blade,” as taught by Ito. Final Act. 4. Appellants contend that the combination of Iijima and Ito fails to teach “forming a lug and a pair of crimp tabs ... the wire in engagement with the lug . . . [and] adhering the wire to the lug . . . with a weld” as required by claim 14. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants explain that Ito teaches a 5 Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 wire connected by a pair of tightening pieces that are then melted and welded and “does not weld a wire to a lug of a blade.” Id. at 9. Appellants’ arguments reveal no reversible error by the Examiner. First, as the Examiner notes (Ans. 3), claim 14 is not limited to adhering to a lug as Appellants suggest. See e.g. Appeal Br. 8. Rather, claim 14 requires “providing a wire in engagement with the lug or between the pair of crimp tabs” and “adhering the wire to the lug or the pair of crimp tabs with a weld.” Claims App’x 1 (emphasis added). In addition to the findings with respect to Iijima noted above, the Examiner finds that Ito discloses a weld to adhere a wire to a pair of crimp tabs. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. Ito describes that [w]hen the laser beam 31 is irradiated by the laser welding device 30, an edge 32 (refer to FIG. 5) of the conductor crimping part 13 of the crimped terminal 10 is melted, the melted edge 32 of the conductor crimping part 13 blocks up a distal end opening of the conductor crimping part 13 in the crimped terminal 10, and is welded to the bottom plate 20 of the conductor crimping part 13, and the distal end opening of the conductor crimping part 13 is sealed. Ito 1 50 and Figures 6 and 9. Ito further explains that as a result of the welding “a good conducting state is kept” because water is prevented from entering the inside of the conductor part and a lower cost is achieved because coating with an anticorrosion material is no longer necessary. Id. 55—56. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims in unpatentable over the applied prior art. 6 Appeal 2017-004982 Application 14/324,701 CONCLUSION Appellants failed to identity a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iijima in view of Saka. Appellants failed to identity a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over Iijima in view of Saka, and further in view of Lambird. Appellants failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Ito. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 10, 12— 15, 19, and 20 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation