Ex parte Nakamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2000

08534100 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2000)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 37
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MASAHIKO NAKAMURA
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, PATE and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 19,
3, 5-9 and 11-18. Claims 1, 2-4 and 10 have been cancelled.
Thus, the appealed claims are the only claims remaining in the
application.
The claimed invention is directed to a socket-type
multipolar electrical connector. The connector is
characterized by a first group of contacts at a relatively
fine pitch and a second group of contacts at a relatively
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
2
courser pitch. The invention can be further understood with
reference to the
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
3
appealed claims appended to appellant’s brief. The references
of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Martens 4,582,386 Apr. 15,
1986
Shibano 5,013,262 May 7,
1991
Sugiyama 5,017,156 May 21,
1991
Townsend 5,055,069 Oct 8,
1991
Kachlic 5,171,161 Dec. 15,
1992
Chau 5,190,480 Mar
2, 1993
Kato 2,186,748 Aug. 19,
1987
(United Kingdom)
Claims 19, 3, 5-9 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shibano in view of Martens, Kato,
Townsend, Kachlic, Sugiyama and Chau. Only claim 19 is argued
in the brief, therefore all claims will stand or fall with the
independent claim 19.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
4
a result of this review we have reached the conclusion that
the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claim 19. Therefore
the rejection of all claims on appeal is reversed. Our
reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Shibano
discloses a socket type electrical connector with a body 10
made of insulating material, holes 12 in the body, contacts 14
to be fitted in the holes, the body being open at its rear
side and bottom. Shibano differs from the claimed subject
matter in that Shibano does not show contacts of relatively
finer and relatively courser pitch, Shibano does not teach
horizontal and vertical ribs or walls between the contacts of
reducing length to form a stairstep or staggered
configuration, and since Shibano does not show contacts of
different pitches, Shibano does not recognize that the
contacts for each pitch should be similar in size.
To supply the teachings of these various features the
examiner has cited Martens, Chau and Kato. Turning first to
Martens, and for example, referring to figure 3A, while the
electrical connectors of group 41 are a different size than
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
5
those of group 42, in our view these connectors are or must be
considered to be at the same pitch as the connectors of 42.
Therefore, Marten cannot teach two groups of connectors at
different pitches, the connectors of each group being of
“similar size.”
Likewise, Kato teaches connectors for sockets 18 and 20
with connectors 20 being at a different pitch. However, the
connectors 20 are not of similar size with respect to the
connectors 18. In fact, Kato makes a specific point that the
two terminal types 22 and 24 are different in shape and size.
Finally, with respect to Chau, we agree that contact 49
is isolated from contact 48, although the single contact 48
does not define a pitch. However, the multiple contacts 56 do
form a separate pitch from the contacts in contact slot 49.
However, in our view it would not have been obvious to apply
this teaching from Chau to the contacts in Shibano. In our
view it is only by impermissible hindsight that the teaching
of Chau can be applied to Shibano. The examiner can point to
no suggestion, express or implied, in either the Shibano or
Chau references that would have suggested the adaptability of
the connectors in Chau to pin connectors to be inserted into
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
6
two groups of holes as in the Shibano disclosure. We have
considered the other references in the examiner’s rejection
and find that they do not ameliorate the shortcomings we have
discussed with respect to Shibano, Kato, Martens and Chau.
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
7
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 and all claims
dependent thereon is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. PATE, III ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jg
Appeal No. 1998-0249
Application No. 08/534,100
8
Felix J. D'Ambrosio
P.O. Box 2266 Eads Station
Arlington, VA 22202