12394912 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

Ex Parte PEPE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 2016

12394912 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/394,912 0212712009 PAUL JOHN PEPE 23552 7590 02/17/2016 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 02316.3914US01 3388 EXAMINER FIGUEROA, FELIX 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2016 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): USPT023552@merchantgould.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL JOHN PEPE, SHELDON EASTON MUIR, and RUSSELL BRUCE ADAMS Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,9121 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-19, 22, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin2 in view of Tan3 and Poulter4 and rejecting claims 2-5, 8, 13, 14, 20, and 21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martin, Tan, and Poulter and further in view of Summers. 5 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Tyco Electronics Corporation. Br. 3. 2 Martin et al., US 6,626,697 Bl, issued Sept. 30, 2003 (hereinafter "Martin"). 3 Tan et al., US 5,545,057 A, issued Aug. 13, 1996 (hereinafter "Tan"). 4 Poulter et al., US 6,428,330 Bl, issued Aug. 6, 2002 (hereinafter "Poulter"). 5 Summers et al., US 7,101,188 Bl, issued Sept. 5, 2006 (hereinafter "Summers"). Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b).6 We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal is directed to cassettes having interchangeable rear mating connectors. Spec. ,-r 2. Appellants disclose that connector assemblies are used in the field of electronic networks, such as for connecting desktop computers or other equipment to servers or other network components. Spec. ,-r 4. Connector assemblies typically include a front mating interface for connecting with front end cable assemblies and a rear mating interface for connecting with back end cables. Spec. ,-r 5. Appellants disclose that such connector assemblies have problems with cable density, cable routing, and ease of use when upgrading, repairing, or replacing cables. Spec. ,-r 5. Appellants' Figure 1, is illustrative of Appellants' invention, and is reproduced below. Appellants' Figure 1 is a front perspective view of a portion of a cable interconnect system. 6 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Specification filed Nov. 1, 2010 (Spec.), the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 6, 2013 (App. Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 24, 2013 (Ans.), and Appellants' Reply Brief filed Nov. 21, 2013 (Reply Br.). 2 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 Appellants' Figure 1 depicts a cable interconnect system 10 including a panel 12 and a plurality of cassettes 20 mounted to the panel 12. Spec. i-f 27. A first device 60, such as a computer, is connected to a cassette 20 via a cable 62 having a modular plug 14 and a second device 64, such as a network switch, is connected to the cassette 20 via a cable 66. Spec. i-f 28. Appellants' Figure 5 is reproduced below. 1 M ,,...,"' -~') -~~~n'.~,-:IG2 ' ' .,. ... . --Â·v, Â·Â·""" Â·, ,,.t~,., ... , i L 7p /--Â·120 ':.::> __ ..... -""'"_....,,,,1-...~>1 ,$< ... J2 . "\ .-Â·'Â·Â·Â·Â· .. -Â·:: '-.;;::-.::-;.;:~~J .. ~;~ 'Â·.,,_ ,/ .. Â·Â·' â€¢ ; ___ ,1_:.,:'-~'--~~-~->}l,1_ ...Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·'l 1 J~'""'''Â·J' ~~~:~:;~::: ' ... ' . :. ' .. ,, â€¢ 1 ,r,Â·-Â· ,; -/_,,_@i,,i_~_::,:,-_â€¢-~---~-,_-_f-, \ .... l 10b ' ,J ' " : :" ........ Â»Â·" .. ' ...... , ,, .,;;>"''';::;::::>' ~ ~: ., __ Â·_,'_ .... ~>Â·<~--'")''Â·<, .â€¢ , .. ~~l~ - '~. '~ .,,__, "">i:< " ' ' .. _.:;::Â·''"''::>"''"'â€¢'' .â€¢. , :~:) ~ ........ _:.. ~~~~;;,;u~:.: .. ::.::.L~:Â·,~:~-~Â· - Appellants' Figure 5 is a rear exploded view of a cassette. The cassette 20 includes a shell formed by a housing 30 and a cover 32. Spec. i-f 30. A contact subassembly 100 is located within the housing 30. Spec. i-f 38. The contact subassembly 100 has a circuit board 104 and one or more electrical connectors 106 including at least one opening 108 and one or more contacts 110. Spec. i-f 38. An interface connector assembly 120 having rear mating 3 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 connectors 70 is also located within the cassette 20. Spec. if 39. The interface connector assembly 120 includes a circuit board 122 with edge contacts 126 that mate with the contacts 110 of the contact subassembly 100, such as by plugging an edge 128 of the circuit board 122 into an opening 108 of the electrical connector 106. Spec. if 39. Appellants' Figure 11 is a cross-sectional view of a cassette. Figure 11 depicts the contact subassembly 100 and interface connector assembly 120 positioned within the cassette 20, with the housing 30 and cover 32 coupled to one another. Spec. if 53. Appellants disclose the electrical connector 106 is configured to interchangeably mate with different types of interface connectors, such as interface connector assembly 120. Spec. if 76. As a result, 4 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 interface connectors may be quickly unplugged and replaced with a different interface connector while the housing 30 and contact subassembly 100 of a cassette 20 remain mounted to a panel, such as when repairing, replacing, or upgrading the back end of the cassette 20. Spec. i-f 7 6. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 7 The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A cassette comprising: a shell having a front and a rear oriented in first and second planes, the shell having a housing and a cover, separate and discrete from the housing, and being mated to the housing along an interface, the housing defining a housing chamber and the cover defining a cover chamber together defining an inner chamber of the shell, the shell having a plurality of plug cavities open at the front for receiving plugs therein; a contact subassembly received within the housing chamber and held in the housing chamber by the cover, the contact subassembly having a planar circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along the interface between the housing and the cover, the contact subassembly being received within the shell such that the circuit board is oriented parallel to the first and second planes of the front and the rear of the shell, the contact subassembly having a plurality of contacts being arranged in contact sets that are configured to mate with different plugs, the contact subassembly having an electrical connector facing the cover chamber, the electrical connector being electrically connected to corresponding ones of the contacts; and an interface connector received within the cover chamber, the interface connector being mated with and unmated from the electrical connector at a separable mating interface, the interface connector having a rear mating connector extending from the rear of the shell that is configured to mate with a mating connector. 7 App. Br. 27. 5 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 B. DISCUSSION 1. Obviousness Rejection over Martin, Tan, and Poulter The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that a circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along an interface between a housing and cover of a cassette, as recited in claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the combination of Martin, Poulter, and Tan. As an initial matter, we interpret the language "a planar circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along the interface between the housing and the cover" of claim 1. During prosecution before the Examiner, the claim language should be given its 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 any definitions or enlightenment contained in the written description of Appellants' Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."' See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Appellants cite Figure 11 of Appellants' disclosure as illustrating a circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along an interface between a housing and a cover of a cassette. App. Br. 8 and 15-16. As depicted in Figure 11, the circuit board 104 is offset from the interface between the housing 30 and the cover 32 so the circuit board 104 is not coplanar with the interface. Appellants provide no other citations to the Specification to define "along" with regard to the relationship between the circuit board and the interface. "Without evidence in the patent specification of an express intent to impart a novel 6 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 meaning to a claim term, the term takes on its ordinary meaning." Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334, 54 USPQ2d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, Figure 11, in of itself, is not sufficient to impart a novel meaning to the term "along." As a result, we tum to the ordinary meaning of "along." The Merriam-Webster dictionary8 defines "along" as "in a line matching the length or direction of." Therefore, in view of Figure 11 of Appellants' disclosure and the ordinary meaning of "along," we interpret "a planar circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along the interface between the housing and the cover" as meaning "a planar circuit board positioned generally parallel to and in a line matching the direction of the interface between the housing and the cover." Turning to the rejection on appeal, the Examiner finds Martin discloses a cassette comprising a shell 300 having a front and rear oriented in first and second planes, a contact subassembly 370 received in the shell, with the contact subassembly having a circuit board, and an interface connector 320 received within the shell, citing the interconnect cassette 300 depicted in Figures 1 and 3 of Martin. Ans. 2. 8 Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry for "along," http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/along (last visited January 12, 2016). 7 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 Figure 1 of Martin is reproduced below: Figure 1 is a front isometric view of an interconnect cassette. Figure 3 of Martin is reproduced below: f1G~3 Figure 3 is a rear isometric view of an interconnect cassette. 8 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 The Examiner finds the contact subassembly has an electrical connector that is mated with the interface connector 320. Ans. 2. In particular, the Examiner cites column 6, lines 39--41 of Martin, which states that the I/O interface 320 depicted in Figure 3 of Martin is electrically connected to the receptacle jacks 370 of Figure 1 via electrical traces, cables, wires, circuit boards, or the like. Martin, however, does not disclose or suggest a particular positioning of the circuit boards for the cassette 300. The Examiner finds Tan discloses a contact subassembly having a planar circuit board 10, which can be mated and unmated from an electrical connector 18 at a separable interface. Ans. 3. Figure 1 of Tan is reproduced below: Figure 1 is an exploded perspective view of an I/O connector module PC board and computer case backpanel. 9 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 Tan discloses an interconnection system of a computer set that includes a vertical connector module PC board 10 that is fixed to a plate-like frame 24 of a computer case backpanel 21. Tan col. 2, 11. 35--41 and 57----62. Figure 2 of Tan is reproduced below: _.~~ ....... .,_ {,_.nâ€¢â€¢10 F iG,l Figure 2 is a rear perspective view of the I/O connector module PC board and a second main board. Tan discloses that the vertical connector module PC board 10 includes a male connector 18 for coupling to a female connector 22 of a (second) main PC board 20 horizontally positioned in the computer case. 9 Tan col. 2, 11. 43-51. 9 Appellants' claim 6 recites, for example, two circuit boards oriented in the manner depicted in Figure 2 of Tan. 10 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Martin to include circuit boards that are perpendicular to each other, as disclosed by Tan, "in order to accommodate more connectors and/ or meet environmental restrictions/requirements." Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Poulter discloses a shell having a housing 40 and a cover 60, with a front and a rear oriented in first and second planes. Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Martin to use a housing and a cover, as disclosed by Poulter, to simplify the assembly of a shell housing circuit boards and components. Ans. 3. Appellants contend that Martin, Tan, and Poulter do not individually disclose or suggest a circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along an interface between a housing and a cover of a cassette, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-23 and Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue none of the applied references discloses a circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along an interface between a housing and cover of a cassette because Martin does not disclose the orientation of a circuit board within the housing of Martin's cassette 300, because Tan does not disclose or suggest a housing and a cover, and because Poulter depicts a circuit board 70 that is oriented perpendicular to an interface between housings 40 and 60. Ans. 17, 18, and 20-22. Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. "[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re McLaughlin, 443F.2d1392, 1395(CCPA1971). Next, Appellants question: [W]hy would the combination result in the circuit board being arranged parallel to and along the interface between the housing and the cover? The Examiner has provided no explanation nor shown 11 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 where the references teach such result. It is merely a conclusory statement with no factual basis, articulated reasoning or rational underpinning. There is no motivation for positioning a circuit board along an interface between a housing and a cover of a shell based on the teachings of Poulter and Tan. App. Br. 22. This argument is also not persuasive of reversible error. Although Martin is silent as to the arrangement of the circuit boards in the disclosed cassette, the Examiner relies on Tan as evidence of a typical arrangement of circuit boards in "electric devices/circuit boards with shells." Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange the circuit boards of Martin as disclosed in Tan "in order to accommodate more connectors and/or meet environmental restrictions/requirements." Ans. 3; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("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"). Significantly, Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's findings. As for Poulter, the mere fact that Poulter discloses a circuit board that is perpendicular to the interface between housing 40 and cover 60 does not weigh against the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness where, as evinced by Tan, alternative circuit board arrangements were known in the art and the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that such an arrangement would have been inoperable in the modified Martin cassette. Independent claims 10 and 18 do not recite a circuit board positioned generally parallel to and along an interface between a housing and cover of a cassette. Claim 10 recites a circuit board extending along a circuit board plane oriented parallel to at least one of first and second planes that the front and rear of 12 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 the cassette shell are oriented in. Claim 18 recites at least one circuit board arranged vertically and oriented generally parallel to the front and rear of the cassette shell. The combination of Martin, Tan, and Poulter would have suggested a circuit board with these orientations for the reasons discussed above and in the Examiner's Answer. Appellants further argue that Martin, Tan, and Poulter do not individually disclose or suggest a contact subassembly received within a housing chamber and held in the chamber by a cover, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 23-24 and Reply Br. 6-7. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require a particular manner for how the contact subassembly is held in the chamber by the cover. Ans. 20-21. In addition, the Examiner finds Martin discloses a contact subassembly held by a shell and, when Martin is modified by Poulter, the shell would include a cover holding or retaining the contact subassembly in the chamber. Ans. 20. Appellants have failed to show reversible error in the Examiner's finding. Independent claims 10 and 18 do not recite that a contact subassembly is held by a cover. In addition, Appellants contend that Martin, Tan, and Poulter do not individually disclose or suggest an interface connector received in a cover chamber and mated with and unmated from an electrical connector at a separable mating interface, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 24--25 and Reply Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds: Martin discloses at least one circuit board (col. 6, lines 39-41) between the jacks (370) and the interface connector (320). Accordingly, an electrical connector (rear end of circuit board) will be electrically connected (mated) with an interface connector (mounting end of 320) received within the shell. Ans. 21; see also Ans. 3; Tan, col. 2, 11. 42--45; Tan Fig. 2 (showing an electrical connector positioned on the back side of a circuit board). 13 Appeal2014-001871 Application 12/394,912 Moreover, Poulter discloses a shell including a housing and a cover. Ans. 3. As a result, the combination of Martin, Tan, and Poulter suggests an interface connector received in a cover chamber, with the interface connector being mated with and unmated from an electrical connector of a contact subassembly at a separable mating interface. Suffice it to say that Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the separate patentability of claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, 22, and 26-28. App. Br. 26. Therefore, for these reasons, and for those expressed in the Examiner's Answer, theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-12, 15-19, 22, and 26-28 over Martin, Tan, and Poulter is sustained. 2. Obviousness Rejection over Martin, Tan, Poulter, and Summers Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the separate patentability of claims 2-5, 8, 13, 14, 20, and 21. App. Br. 26. Therefore, the Â§ 103(a) rejection over Martin, Tan, Poulter, and Summers is sustained. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). AFFIRMED 14