Ex Parte Saxl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11812447 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID SAXL, JADRAN KOSTOVIC,
and MATTHIAS KUDOKE
____________

Appeal 2010-008716
Application 11/812,447
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-17, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 5, 2010), the Answer (mailed Mar.
24, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed May 24, 2010). We have considered in
Appeal 2010-008716
Application 11/812,447

2
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an electrical contact system including
first and second contacts arranged about a central axis. The second contact
includes a contact tulip having contact fingers which have an inner face
directed towards the central axis and an outer face directed away from the
central axis. In a closed state, the inner faces of the contact fingers make
electrical contact with an inner part of the first contact while the outer faces
of the contact fingers bear against the first contact to form an outer contact-
making face enabling current transfer to the first contact. See generally
Spec. 8:24–9:12.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An electrical contact system for an electrical switching device
for power supply systems, in particular for a fast-acting grounding switch or
a circuit breaker, the switching device having a central axis and a first
contact or mating contact and a second contact, at least the second contact
comprising a contact tulip having a plurality of contact fingers, and the
contact fingers having outer faces, which face away from the central axis,
and inner faces, which face towards the central axis, in a closed operating
state of the switching device the contact tulip being inserted in the first
contact, in addition, in the closed operating state, the outer faces of the
Appeal 2010-008716
Application 11/812,447

3
contact fingers of the contact tulip bearing against the first contact and
forming an outer contact-making face for a current transfer to the first
contact, wherein in the closed operating state the inner faces of the contact
fingers of the contact tulip also bear against the first contact and form an
inner contact-making face for a further current transfer to the first contact.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art reference:
Bleiker EP 0 776 021 A2 May 28, 1997
Claims 1-17, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bleiker.

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claim 3 focus on the
contention that Bleiker does not disclose a contact arrangement in which the
outer faces of the contact fingers of a contact tulip (second contact) bear
against a first contact. Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2)
that Bleiker discloses that the contact fingers 9 of the contact 4
(corresponding to the claimed first contact) contact the surface 18 of the
movable contact 1 (corresponding to the claimed second contact).
Appellants contend, however, that Bleiker’s surface 18 is not analogous to
the claimed “outer faces of the contact fingers.” Appellants further contend
the Examiner erred in finding that elements 15 and 16 of Bleiker’s movable
contact 1 correspond to the claimed “contact fingers.”
Appeal 2010-008716
Application 11/812,447

4
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of any error in the
Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6-8). Our interpretation of the disclosure
of Bleiker coincides with that of the Examiner, i.e., surface 18 is the outer
face of element 15 which along with element 16 constitute the contact
fingers of movable contact 1 as illustrated in Bleiker’s Figure 1 partial
section view through the bottom portion of contact 1. As the contact 1
(second contact) of Bleiker moves into contact with contact 4 (first contact)
element 15, which Appellants acknowledge is a solid metal body (App. Br.
6), the outer face of element 15 will contact the contact finger 9 of contact 4.
We further agree with the Examiner that, contrary to Appellants’
contention (Reply Br. 2-3), the arcing 19 illustrated in Bleiker’s Figure 1
supports the Examiner’s position that the outer faces of contact finger 15
make contact with elements 8 and 9 of contact 4. Further, to whatever
extent Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 2) that Bleiker’s element 15 is a
separate element designed to “shield” contact finger 16 has merit, there is
nothing to preclude element 15, which makes contact with contact 9 and
which Appellants acknowledge is a solid metal body, from being construed
as a contact finger.
In view of the above discussion, we conclude that the Examiner did
not err in finding that all of the claimed limitations are present in the
disclosure of Bleiker. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 (and its dependent claim 3) and 11, as well
as dependent claims 2, 4-10, and 12-17 not separately argued by Appellants,
is sustained.

Appeal 2010-008716
Application 11/812,447

5
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-17 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc