Ex Parte Pavlovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13919395 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/919,395 06/17/2013 Slobodan Pavlovic LEAR51109PUSP 2375
34007 7590 10/03/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /T FAR TORPOR ATTON
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER FIGUEROA, FELIX O
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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 SLOBODAN PAVLOVIC, MICHAEL GLICK, and
SHEIKH HABIBUR RAHMAN
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
December 10, 2015 decision finally rejecting claims 1—5, 7—14, 16, and 19—23
(“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lear Corporation (Appeal
Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrical receptacle assembly with
a conductive body and a receptacle formed therein (Abstract). The electrical
receptacle is said to be useful in a vehicle charging system (Spec. 119-20). The
receptacle as a diameter and an enlarged region with a diameter greater than the
receptacle diameter, and inside the enlarged region are at least one annular coil
and at least one annular spacer (Spec. 129). Details of the claimed invention are
set forth in representative claim 1, as reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix {emphasis added):
1. An electrical receptacle assembly comprising:
a conductive body with a receptacle formed therein
with a diameter sized to receive an electrical connector, wherein
the receptacle includes an enlarged region with a diameter that is
greater than the receptacle diameter;
at least one annular spacer provided within the
receptacle enlarged region; and
at least one annular coil spring provided in the
receptacle enlarged region, generally coaxial with the spacer, in
electrical contact with the body for receipt of the electrical
connector within the receptacle in contact with the coil spring;
wherein one of the at least one annular spacer and the
at least one annular coil spring abuts a depth of the enlarged
region.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—5, 7—10, 16, and 19-22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Glick.2
2 Glick et al., US 8,282,429 B2, issued October 9, 2012 (originally published
as US 2012/0003882 Al, published January 5, 2012).
2
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
II. Claims 11—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Glick.
III. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Glick in view of Kwasny.3
IV. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glick in view of Eddy.4
Claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. However, claims
19 and 20 were cancelled in an amendment filed on June 13, 2016 and
entered by the Examiner on June 27, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not offer separate substantive arguments with respect to
any of Rejections II, III, or IV (Appeal Br. 7—8), nor for any of the
dependent claims (Appeal Br. 7). Accordingly, our analysis will focus on
the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Glick.
“A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d
1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet
Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336—37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this instance, with
regards to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Glick does not
disclose ‘“a conductive body with a receptacle formed therein with a
diameter sized to receive an electrical connector, wherein the receptacle
3 Kwasny et al., US 7,878,866 Bl, issued February 1, 2011.
4 Eddy, US 2,912,668, issued November 10, 1959.
3
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
includes an enlarged region with a diameter that is greater than the
receptacle diameter’” (Appeal Br. 7).
The Examiner finds that Glick’s FIG. 5 (reproduced below) discloses
this feature, and provides the following annotated version to illustrate this
finding:
enlarged region with a
(another) drarrastsr greater
than the (§ret) diameter
An annotated version of Glick’s FIG. 5, which shows an embodiment of
Glick’s invention.
The Examiner finds that Glick’s FIG. 5 shows a cone shaped section
of the receptacle, which has a diameter which is smaller than the portion of
the receptacle shown to the left in FIG. 5 (Ans. 2). Appellants do not
directly dispute this finding, but argue that the conical section “does not
have ‘a diameter sized to receive an electrical connector’ as claimed” (Reply
Br. 2). Appellants further assert that the conical section “does not receive
the electrical connector” (id.).
These arguments are not persuasive. It is well established that “the
PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification.'1'’ In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “[A]s applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
4
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id. The claim language
does not recite a specific connector which must be received in the receptacle,
only that the receptacle have “a diameter sized to receive” a generic
electrical connector. The Specification states “[t]he receptacle end 120 has a
diameter that is sized to provide clearance to the pin 112” (Spec. 128).
The Examiner has presented a reasonable basis for establishing that
the receptacle end 120 is functionally capable of receiving an electrical
connector. Where there is reason to believe that prior art structure is
inherently capable of performing a recited function, the burden shifts to the
applicant to show that the recited function patentably distinguishes the
claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA
1981) (affirming rejections where applicant failed to show that prior art
structures were not inherently capable of functioning as claimed invention).
Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that
the conical section of Glick’s receptacle has a diameter which is sized to
provide clearance to a pin, and Appellants have not shown how the claimed
function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art
structure. The recitation of a material intended to be worked upon by a
claimed apparatus (in this case the electrical connector) does not
differentiate the claimed apparatus structure from the structure of a prior art
apparatus. In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 345 (CCPA 1952).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections.
5
Appeal 2017-003453
Application 13/919,395
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—5, 7—10, 16, and 19-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Glick.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glick.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glick in view of Kwasny.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Glick in view of Eddy.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6