Ex Parte Pels et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 2004

09592058 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 2004)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID J. PELS, VIATCHESLAV PRONKINE,
SEAN PATRICK RYAN and RONALD C. VALENTI
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, NASE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection (Paper No. 6,
mailed November 23, 2001) of claims 1 to 20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to the field of electromagnetic interference, and
in particular to a connector that suppresses electromagnetic interference from
IEEE-1394 connectors (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Weidler et al. (Weidler) 6,033,263 Mar. 7, 2000
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 10, 12 to 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Weidler.
Claims 3, 8, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weidler.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 9, mailed July 12, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 3
the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed April 30, 2002) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Initially we note that the objection to claims 9 and 20 under 37 CFR § 1.75(c)
relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we can not review this
objection argued by the appellants in the brief (pp. 4-5) and responded to by the
examiner in the answer (pp. 8-9).
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 10, 12 to 18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 4
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
'fully met' by it."
Claims 1, 10 and 15, the independent claims on appeal, read as follows:
1 . An electronic assembly comprising:
a chassis that is configured to provide a chassis ground, the chassis
having a surface with an opening for receiving a connector,
a first circuit board that includes the connector, the connector having: a
conductive outer shell, and one or more receptacles for receiving signals that are
coupled to components on the first circuit board, and
a suppression plate that is configured to provide a galvanically isolated
high frequency coupling between the conductive outer shell of the connector and
the chassis in proximity to the opening of the chassis that receives the connector,
wherein the suppression plate includes a second circuit board.
10. A method of manufacturing an electronic assembly comprising:
providing a chassis that is configured to provide a chassis ground, the
chassis having a surface with an opening for receiving a connector,
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 5
providing a first circuit board that includes the connector, the connector
having: a conductive outer shell, and one or more receptacles for receiving
signals that are coupled to components on the first circuit board, and
providing suppression plate that is configured to provide a galvanically
isolated high frequency coupling between the conductive outer shell of the
connector and the chassis in proximity to the opening of the chassis that receives
the connector when the first circuit board and the suppression plate are attached
to the chassis, wherein the suppression plate includes a second circuit board,
and
attaching the first circuit and the suppression plate to the chassis.
15. An EMI suppression plate comprising:
a circuit board that includes:
one or more contact items that provide electrical contact between a
conductive outer shell of a connector and a first conductor on the circuit board,
and
one or more capacitors that are configured to couple high
frequency signals from the first conductor on the circuit board to a second
conductor on the circuit board that is configured to become electrically coupled to
a chassis ground when the EMI suppression plate is attached to a chassis,
thereby providing galvanic isolation between the outer shell of the
connector and the chassis ground while also providing a high frequency coupling
between the outer shell of the conductor and the chassis ground.
Weidler's invention relates to an electrical connector which is capacitively
coupled to the chassis of an electrical device. As shown in Figures 1-9, Weidler's
invention is a capacitive coupling assembly 60 for an electrical connector 10, where the
connector comprises a dielectric housing 12 holding a plurality of contacts 16 and a
conductive shell 14 on the housing. The capacitive coupling assembly 60 is electrically
coupled to the conductive shell 14, and comprises a dielectric member 61 which is
sandwiched between conductive sheets 62, 63, the dielectric member 61 holding one or
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 6
more capacitors 72 that are operably connected to effect a capacitance between the
conductive sheets 62, 63, to block low frequency current from electrical potential
between the conductive shell 14 and a conductive panel 4 to which the connector 10 is
to be mounted, at a cutout 5 thereof. Conductive sheet 62 engages the conductive
panel 4 and first electrodes of the capacitors 72, and conductive sheet 63 engages the
conductive shell 14 and second electrodes of the capacitors 72. Any difference in
ground potential between the conductive shell 14 and the conductive panel 4 is directed
through conductive sheet 62 and the capacitors 72 which will block passage of low
frequency current.
The appellants essentially argue (brief, pp. 6-8) that Weidler lacks (1) a
suppression plate that is configured to provide a galvanically isolated high frequency
coupling between the conductive outer shell of the connector and the chassis in
proximity to the opening of the chassis that receives the connector, wherein the
suppression plate includes a second circuit board as recited in claims 1 and 10; and
(2) an EMI suppression plate comprising a circuit board that includes one or more
capacitors that are configured to couple high frequency signals from a first conductor on
the circuit board to a second conductor on the circuit board that is configured to become
electrically coupled to a chassis ground when the EMI suppression plate is attached to a
chassis, thereby providing galvanic isolation between the outer shell of the connector
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 7
1 It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation resides with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
and the chassis ground while also providing a high frequency coupling between the
outer shell of the conductor and the chassis ground as recited in claim 15.
The examiner asserts (answer, pp. 9-11) that the above-noted limitations of
claims 1, 10 and 15 are readable on Weidler's capacitive coupling assembly 60.
Specifically, the examiner determined that Weidler's dielectric member 61 was a circuit
board and that Weidler's conductive sheets 62, 63 and connected capacitors 72 was a
circuit. The examiner further determined that Weidler's capacitive coupling assembly 60
inherently provides a galvanically isolated high frequency coupling between the
conductive shell 14 of the connector 10 and the conductive panel 4.
In our view, the examiner has presented a prima facie case of anticipation.1 The
USPTO applies to the verbiage of the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning
of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
that may be afforded by the written description contained in the appellants' specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The American
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 8
2 See page 4 of the appellants' brief.
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, (1992) defines "circuit
board" as "[a]n insulated board on which interconnected circuits and components such
as microchips are mounted or etched" and defines "circuit" as "[a] configuration of
electrically or electromagnetically connected components or devices." With these
definitions, it is our determination that the claimed second circuit board of claims 1 and
10 and the circuit board of claim 15 are readable on Weidler's dielectric member 61 on
which interconnected conductive sheets 62, 63 and capacitors 72 (which constitute
circuits) are mounted. Lastly, we agree with the examiner that Weidler's capacitive
coupling assembly 60 which blocks passage of low frequency current will inherently
provide a galvanically isolated high frequency coupling between the conductive shell 14
of the connector 10 and the conductive panel 4.
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1, 10 and 15 are anticipated by Weidler.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject independent claims 1, 10 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The appellants have grouped claims 1 to 20 as
standing or falling together.2 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims
2, 4 to 7, 9, 12 to 14, 16 to 18 and 20 fall with claims 1, 10 and 15. Thus, it follows that
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 4 to 7, 9, 12 to 14, 16 to 18 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is also affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 9
The obviousness rejection
Dependent claims 3, 8, 11 and 19 have not been separately argued by the
appellants. In fact, as set forth above, the appellants have grouped claims 1 to 20 as
standing or falling together. Accordingly, these claims will be treated as falling with their
parent claims. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and
In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). Thus, it follows that
the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 8, 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also
sustained.
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 10
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 to 7, 9, 10, 12
to 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 3, 8, 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-0271
Application No. 09/592,058
Page 11
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
JVN/jg