Ex Parte Seymour et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2008

10737048 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DOUGLAS G. SEYMOUR, DAVID HUMPHREY,
and MICHAEL J. SWANTNER
______________

Appeal 2008-1562
Application 10/737,048
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided: September 24, 2008
________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) (2002) from the
final rejection of claims 1-3.
The reference set forth below is relied upon as evidence of
anticipation:
Champ US 6,189,407 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
Appeal 2008-1562
Application 10/737,048

2
Claim 1 the only independent claim of the three claims on appeal is as
follows:
1. An assemblage comprising:
an electrical connector having a metal body
with a tubular projection having a
push-through portion having a first diameter and
an engaging portion having a second diameter
larger than said first diameter;
and a metal support having a major part that
is substantially rigid and includes an aperture
formed by a plurality of deflectable spokes, said
aperture having a center opening with a third
diameter greater than said first diameter and less
than said second diameter, whereby said tubular
projection push-through portion slides through said
aperture and said spokes engage said second
diameter of said engaging portion and mount said
electrical connector with said support.

Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Champ.
The Examiner maintains that
[t]he patent to Champ et al. discloses a metal
(Col. 9, line 4) electrical connector having a body
(20) with two diameters (See Figure Below), the
second being larger than the first.
The patent to Champ et al. also teaches a
support (30), having a major part (31) that is a
substantially rigid and has an aperture having a
center opening with a third diameter larger than the
first, but smaller than the second diameter, and a
plurality of deflectable spokes (34) which diverge
away from a plane of the major part of the support,
the second diameter of the connector limiting the
movement of the connector through the support
(30).
Appeal 2008-1562
Application 10/737,048

3
(Answer 3.)

The Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of Champ referred to above
indicates the third diameter to be at the opening defined by the annular base
portion 31 of the body 32 of the lock member 30. The Examiner’s position
is thus that the spokes form the aperture at their bases about flange 31 in
Champ and not at their free ends where the opening formed thereby is
considerably narrower.
Appellants argue however “every diameter of the sleeve member 20 of
Champ et al. is larger than the diameter of the spoke end of Champ et al.
lock member 30.” (Appeal Br. 3.) Appellants thus maintain that the third
diameter opening in Champ is defined by the deflectable members 34 at the
free ends thereof (spoke end).
Thus, at issue is what structure defines Appellants’ center opening of
the aperture and accordingly, where such a center opening should be read on
the lock member 30 in Champ.
Claim 1 requires that the “aperture [is] formed by a plurality of
deflectable spokes, said aperture having a center opening with a third
diameter greater than said first diameter and less than said second
diameter….” The support for this limitation is found in the Specification
which describes that
[a] support 20 for the electrical connector has a
major part 22 that is substantially rigid and
includes an aperture 24 formed by a plurality of
deflectable spokes or beams 26 .… The aperture
24 has a center opening 28 with a third diameter
that is greater than the first diameter and less than
the second diameter, whereby the tubular
projection push-through portion 16 slides through
Appeal 2008-1562
Application 10/737,048

4
the aperture 24 and the spokes 26 engage the
second diameter of the engaging portion 18 ….”

(Specification 4:4-10.) Furthermore, Appellants’ Figure 2 shows the center
opening 28 defined by the tips of the spokes 26 while the aperture 24 is
defined by the base of the spokes. We thus find that Appellants’ central
opening 28 must be defined by the tips or free ends of the deflectable spokes
26 and not by the bases thereof. As such, we read the free ends and not the
bases of the deflectable members 34 in Champ to define the central opening.
Thus, in Champ, the third diameter is the diameter of the opening of the lock
member 30 at the tips of the deflectable members 34, and this third diameter
is not greater than the first and second diameters of the sleeve 20 identified
by the Examiner. The requirement of claim 1 is thus not met.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claim 1 based on Champ.
With regard to remaining rejected dependent claims 2 and 3, because
these claim rejections rely upon the underlying rejection of independent
claim 1, we also reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Champ.

REVERSED
Appeal 2008-1562
Application 10/737,048

5

hh

HAMMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
3125 SPRINGBANK LANE
SUITE G
CHARLOTTE, NC 28226