Ex Parte Rzasa et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 8, 201914183049 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/183,049 02/18/2014 128168 7590 05/10/2019 Michael Best & Friedrich LLP (Hubbell) 100 East Wisconsin A venue Suite 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael Paul Rzasa 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. 208273-9050-USOO 6589 EXAMINER PARVEZ,AZMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2019 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): mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com kmbarner@michaelbest.com webradley@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL PAUL RZASA, ALAN DOUGLAS BECK, EVAN MARTIN, PETER WASON, and DANIEL OWENS Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 1 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Coe (US 2008/0307934 Al, pub. Dec. 18, 2008). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 "The real party in interest is Hubbell Incorporated." Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal The Appellants' "invention relates to crimping dies for attaching connectors to electrical conductors." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 13, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A crimping die comprising: an outer body having a tool engaging surface; an inner body coupled to said outer body having a cnmpmg area; a first selecting aperture in said outer body configured to indicate one of an appropriately sized connector and an appropriately sized conductor relative to the crimping area. ANALYSIS For the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that Coe discloses a crimping die including: an outer body having a tool engaging surface (Fig. 2A; 64; outer side of 64 and attached Fig. 2A); an inner body coupled to said outer body having a crimping area (Fig. 2A; 64; inner side of 64, attached Fig. 2A and ,r 003 8); a first selecting aperture in said outer body configured to indicate one of an appropriately sized connector (Fig. 3; M59 and ,r 0037) and an appropriately sized conductor relative to the cnmpmg area. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Coe's Figure 2A to elaborate on the application of Coe' s crimping tool to the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 3. The annotated version of Coe's Figure 2A and Coe' s Figures 2B and 3 are reproduced below: 2 Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 Figure 2A "is a rear perspective view of a multi-purpose cable crimping tool in an open state" (Coe ,r 13) and the annotations provided by the Examiner identify the "outer body" and the "inner body-crimping area" of Coe' s crimping tool; Figure 2B "is a front perspective view of the multipurpose cable crimping tool of [Figure] 2A" (id. ,r 14); and Figure 3 "is a side elevation of one component of the multi-purpose cable crimping tool of [Figure] 2B" (id. ,r 15). 3 Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 The Appellants argue that Coe' s M59 area "is a crimping area positioned in the identified inner body, not a selecting aperture in the outer body." Appeal Br. 9; see Reply Br. 2. The Appellants' argument is persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim phrase "outer body" and "inner body" in light of the Specification would understand that these bodies are directed to different portions of the crimping die. For example, Figures 2 and 4 of the Appellants' invention show outer body 32 and inner body 34 as unitary and integral with one another. See Spec. ,r 22. Figures 2 and 4 are reproduced below: 12 3f \ 78 ,------b 7\ Iii < 64 75 ) J6 Jl ) ,- ,- f ·I I J ~/ ::I I! : 'I I 44 ll\:-__ :::::::::::::::\" ' /.::::::::::::: .......... ,, i I ---;-s2 I: r' : : ______,......,- 54 !!'::'.:-:__ 1 :: 48 FIG. 2 FIG.4 "Figure 2 is a perspective view of a[]crimping die according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention" and "Figure 4 is a bottom elevational view of the exemplary crimping die of Figure 2." Id. ,r,r 11, 13. The Specification also describes: "outer body 32 extends coaxially beyond the inner body 34 on two axial sides from a first end 36 to a second end 38"; and "inner body 4 Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 34 has a substantially semi-cylindrical shape and extends axially latterly from a first end 44 to a second end 46." Id. ,r,r 22-23. The Specification also discloses that outer body 32 includes selecting apertures 64, 66, 68. Id. ,r 26. As shown in Figures 2 and 4, selecting apertures 64, 66, 68 are characterized by the negative space created by outer body 32 's three dimensions. The Examiner's application of Coe' s crimping tool to the claimed "first selecting aperture in said outer body" relies on a side profile of Coe' s crimping tool that only accounts for two dimensions of an aperture. See Final Act. 2-3. The third dimension of the aperture, which is needed to create an aperture in an object, is located in Coe's crimping area, which the Examiner identities as the inner body. See id. at 3 (annotating Coe, Fig. 2A); see also id. at 7 ("identif-1ying] the outer body as the outer side of 64 and the crimping area as the inner side of 64," such that "[a]ll of the cavities are positioned on the inner side of 64, consistent with the proper interpretation of the cavities are the crimping area"). Hence, the Examiner's identification of an aperture of Coe' s crimping tool is not understood to be in the identified outer body. Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that the outer side of Coe' s die 64, particularly element M59 as shown in Figure 3, corresponds to the "selecting aperture in said outer body," as recited in claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 as anticipated by Coe. Independent claims 13 and 19 each include a similar limitation as independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13, 15, 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 19 suffers from a similar deficiency as discussed above. See 5 Appeal2018-008498 Application 14/183,049 Final Act. 4---6. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 13 and 19, and dependent claims 14--18 and 20, as anticipated by Coe. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation