Ex Parte Orsley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2010

11201862 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte TIM ORSLEY
_____________

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: January 13, 2010
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 60 through 66, 73, 93, 97, 98, and 109, Claims 76 through 87, 90
through 92 and 94 through 96 have been indicated by the Examiner as
containing allowable subject matter.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a connector assembly for a computer that
includes contacts of a first length and contacts of a second length. See pages
3 and 4 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 60 is reproduced below:
60. A receiver assembly for use in a connector assembly that
facilitates electrical communication between a first computer
subsystem and a second computer subsystem, the receiver assembly
adapted to be coupled between the first computer subsystem and the
second computer subsystem, the receiver assembly comprising
a first row of substantially collinear, spaced-apart, first
connector receivers;
a second row of substantially collinear, spaced-apart, first
connector receivers, wherein each first connector receiver defines a
first connector engaging location and each first connector receiver
having a first receiver depth, and
each of the first connector engaging locations being arranged
substantially collinearly; and
a plurality of spaced apart second connector receivers each
having a second receiver depth that is different than the first receiver
depth, wherein the second connector receivers are interspersed
between and substantially collinear with the first connector receivers
along at least one of the rows of first connector receivers so that each
of the second connector receivers is positioned substantially between
a corresponding pair of the first connector receivers,
the second connector receivers each define a second connector
engaging location, and
the second connector engaging locations are positioned
substantially collinear with the first connector engaging locations.

2

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

REFERENCES
Sasaki US 5,174,770 Dec. 29, 1992
Sakurai US 5,660,551 Aug. 26, 1997

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 60, 63, 65, 73, and 109 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sakurai. The Examiner’s rejection
is on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 61, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sakurai. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claim 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sasaki. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 6 and 7 of
the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 97 and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sasaki. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 7 of
the Answer.
ISSUES
Rejection of claims 60, 63, 65, 73, and 109
Appellant argues on pages 7 through 12 of the Appeal Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 60, 63, 65, 73, and 109 is in error. Appellant
asserts on page 9 of the Appeal Brief that Sakurai does not teach a plurality

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed April 11, 2008.
2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 12,
2008, and Reply Brief filed June 12, 2008.
3

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

of second connector receivers “having a second receiver depth that is
different than the first receiver depth” as claimed. Appellant states that
Sakurai is silent as to the depth of the connector receiving portions and that
it is not possible to determine the relative depth from the figures as this
feature is obscured or not depicted in the figures. App. Brief 9.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions directed to the rejection of independent
claims 60 and 109 present the issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Sakurai teaches that the second connector receiving
portions have a receiver depth that is different from the first connector
portions?3
Rejection of claim 93
Appellant argues, on pages 16 and 17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 93 is in error. Appellant argues that Sasaki
does not disclose second connectors being interspersed and substantially
collinear with the rows of first connectors as claimed.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions directed to the rejection of independent
claim 93 present the issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Sasaki teaches the second connectors being interspersed and
substantially collinear with the rows of first connectors as claimed?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden, when on appeal to the Board, to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,

3 We note that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues, however as
this issue is dispositive of the appealed rejection, we do not reach the
additional issues.
4

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, and Appellant has the burden
of presenting a rebuttal to the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale
and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the
drawing features are of little value. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia
Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Sakurai teaches a connector for high speed transmission with little
crosstalk. The connector (female portion) has plural ground contacts
which have an “L” shaped cross section and plural signal contacts.
Abstract.
2. The male plug used with Sakurai’s connector has several rows of
contacts, some of the contacts (items 17) connect to the ground
contacts of the connector, and other shorter contacts (items 15) carry
the signal to be transmitted. Figures 1A, 1B, 4, and 5; col. 3, ll. 38-
44.
3. There are two types of contacts in the connector (female portion);
each has an upper and lower element which engage the contacts of
the plug (male portion). The shape of these contacts is shown in
Figures 2, 3, and 4. However the description of these Figures does
not identify the depth of the engaging portions. Sakurai, col. 2, ll.
51-64.
5

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

4. Sasaki teaches a multiple contact electrical connector. The
connector includes signal contacts (items 6) and ground contacts
(items 5). Abstract.
5. Sasaki depicts the arrangement of the contacts in Figure 1D.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 60, 63, 65, 73, and 109
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sakurai teaches that the second connector receiving portions have a receiver
depth that is different from the first connector portions. Independent claims
60 and 109 each recite that the second conductor receivers “each [have] a
second receiver depth that is different than the first receiver depth.” The
Examiner relies upon Figure 4 of Sakurai to depict this feature and has not
identified that the text of Sakurai’s disclosure describes a different receiver
depth. Answer 4, 9, and 10. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding.
Sakurai does not describe the receiver depth of these contacts. Fact 3.
Further, Sakurai does not identify that the drawings are to scale. As such,
the relative size of the components can not be determined from the Figures.
Additionally, as Figure 4 is a perspective view, the scale necessarily differs
for items in the foreground and the background. Accordingly, we find that
the Examiner has not presented sufficient evidence to show that Sakurai
teaches the depth of the respective receiver portions as recited in
independent claims 60 and 109. Claims 63, 65, and 73 depend upon claim
63. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 60, 63, 65,
73, and 109.

6

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

Rejection of claims 61, 62, 64, and 66
Claims 61, 62, 64, and 66 ultimately depend upon claim 60. The
Examiner in rejecting these claims has not provided evidence that the depth
of the respective receiver portions as recited in independent claim 60 is
taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 60.

Rejection of claim 93
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Sasaki teaches second connectors being interspersed and
substantially collinear with the rows of first connectors as claimed. Claim
93 recites first and second rows of collinear spaced apart first connectors and
a plurality of spaced apart second connectors “being interspersed between
and substantially collinear with the first connectors along at least one of the
rows of first connectors.” Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection focus on Sasaki’s Figure 1D. Appellant argues that when looked at
in the horizontal orientation, the first contacts (items 5, which correspond to
contacts 8 of the plug of Fig. 1C) and second contacts (items 6, which
correspond to contacts 8’ in the plug of Fig. 1C), are not collinear. App.
Brief 16. Similarly, Appellant argues that when viewed in the vertical
orientation the rows of contacts are not collinear. App. Brief 16. We concur
with Appellant’s description of the contacts in the vertical and horizontal
orientation. However, we note that the claim does not recite an orientation
of the rows or a description of the number of rows. When viewing Figure
1D in the diagonal orientation (see marked up Figure 1D below) it is clear
7

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

that there are several rows of first contacts items 8’ and that interspersed
amongst the first contacts 8’ and collinear with them are second contacts
items 8.
Figure 1D is reproduced below:

Marked up Figure 1D from Sasaki with lines drawn diagonally
to depict rows of contacts 8’ (item 6) with contacts 8 (item 5)
interspersed between and collinear with the contacts 8’ (item 6).

Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Sasaki teaches second connectors being interspersed and substantially
collinear with the rows of first connectors. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 93.

8

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

Rejection of claims 97 and 98
Appellant argues on page 11 of the Appeal Brief that claims 97 and 98
are allowable based upon their dependency on claim 93. As Appellant’s
arguments directed to claim 93 have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of claim 93, we are similarly not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 97 and 98. Accordingly we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 97 and 98.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 60 through 66, 73, 93,
97, 98 and 109 is affirmed-in-part.
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)(iv).

9

Appeal 2009-003019
Application 11/201,862

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD

DAVID K. LUCENTE; SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPT. - COL2LGL
389 DISC DRIVE
LONGMONT, CO 80503
10