Ex Parte Stokoe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

13958029 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/958,029 08/02/2013 Philip T. STOKOE
27557 7590 05/31/2018
BLANK ROME LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
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.
124315-00860 4669
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARSHAD C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
Belay@blankrome.com
W ashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP T. STOKOE 1
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
Technology Center 2800
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B.
HOW ARD Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 9 through 29 and 33 through 35. The
Examiner has allowed claims 1 through 8 and 30 through 32. Oral
arguments were heard on May 22, 2018. A transcript of the hearing will be
added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Amphenol Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed invention is directed to an electrical connector
with a plurality of contact beams extending from a wafer. See Spec.,
Abstract. Claim 9 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
9. An electrical interconnection assembly comprising:
a first electrical connector comprising a wafer having an
insulative housing with a first conductor and a first panel member
extending therefrom; and
a second electrical connector comprising a shroud having
a second conductor and a second panel member disposed therein,
the second conductor forming a single piece member and having
an integral contact section that protrudes outward with respect to
the second panel member to form a first contact point.
wherein the wafer is received in the shroud such that the
first contact point contacts the first conductor.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 through 22 and 33 through 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (US 5,295,843,
issued March 22, 1994). Final Act. 2-7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 23 through 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (US 6,846,202 Bl,
issued January 25, 2005). Final Act. 7-9.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
March 10, 2016, Reply Brief ("Rep. Br.") filed October 17, 2016, Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 10, 2015, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Answer") mailed August 17, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
ISSUES
With respect to the Examiner's rejection based upon Davis,
Appellant's arguments on pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief, and pages
1 through 5 of the Reply Brief present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding Davis discloses a conductor
forming a single piece member with an integral contact
section as recited in independent claims 9 and 15?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding Davis discloses a conductor
split to form a first and second fingers as recited in
independent claim 15?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding Davis discloses the width
of the first and second fingers together are substantially the
same as the width of the distant end of the conductor as
recited in claim 3 3 or that the fingers do not extend
transversely outward as recited in claim 35?
With respect to the Examiner's rejection based upon Schmidt,
Appellant's arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 6
through 8 of the Reply Brief present us with the following issue:
d) Did the Examiner err in finding Schmidt, discloses a pivot
member and a contact member as recited in claim 23?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 9 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
3
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
however we are persuaded of error in the Examiners' rejection of claims 23
through 29 and 33 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejection based upon Davis.
First issue.
Appellant's arguments directed to the first issue assert that the
Examiner erred in equating Davis' contact 6 with the claimed conductor
formed of a single integral member. App. Br 5. Appellant argues that
Davis' contact 6 is located in the housing of Davis' connector and that it is
attached to a pair of fingers and as such is not a single integral contact
section. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant states:
The power contact of Davis is not integral with the
fingers. Davis notes that "the power contact 6 is of unitary
construction, stamped and formed from a strip of metal."
Davis, col. 3, lines 7-9. But that unitary fabrication of the
power contact does not include the contact fingers. Indeed, the
contact fingers of Davis are separate components that are
merely attached to the power contact 6. See id., col. 2, lines
28-29 (stating that the contact fingers 9 are merely "on" the
power contact); see also Figure 3, showing the power contact 6
as a distinct component from the contact fingers 9).
App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner
should interpret the term "integral" in light of the specification as being a
single piece member having unitary construction. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments stating that the term
integral is interpreted "as consisting or composing parts that together
constitute a whole." Answer 3. Further, the Examiner finds that the
elements 6, 9 and 17 of the first conductor of the electrical connection
constitute a whole and are integral. Answer 3 (citing Davis Figs. 3, 9-12).
4
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
We concur with the Examiner's findings. Initially we note that the
difference between the interpretations of the term integral is not whether
there are multiple parts, but rather whether the parts are a single piece
member which has unitary construction. See Reply Br. 2. We accept
Appellant's proffered definition of "integral" as being of unitary
construction; however we find that Davis teaches the claimed second contact
forming a single piece member and having an integral contact section. 3
Initially, we note the Examiner's rejection relies upon the left connector in
Davis' Figure 11 (which contains the conductor with parts 6, 17, and 9, and
is shown in detail in Davis Figures 2 through 7) as being the claimed first
connector and the right connector as being the claimed second connector
(which also contains a conductor with parts 6, 17, and 9 and is shown in
detail in Davis Figures 8 through 10). Final Act. 2-3. Claim 9 recites the
second conductor as being formed of a single piece member and having an
integral contact portion. Claim 15 recites the first conductor formed of a
single integral member and has an end split to form first and second fingers.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds that items 6, 9, and 17 are integral
and meet the claimed second contact. The power contact, item 6, has
contact fingers items 9, which are connected to a body portion 17. See
Davis col. 2, 11. 28-33, 55-56, Fig. 3 (for first conductor), Figs. 8, 9 (for
second conductor). Davis states, "the power contact is of unitary
construction stamped and formed of a strip of metal." Col. 3, 11. 7-9. Thus,
3 We agree that "integral" requires the elements to be formed of a single
piece and not to be pieces that are attached to each other. See i-f 91 of
Appellant's Specification. To the extent Appellant is arguing that the term
"integral" precludes there being portions between two other portions we
disagree.
5
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
from these disclosures and Fig. 3 (for the first conductor), and Figs. 8-9 (for
the second conductor) we find the skilled artisan would recognize that the
power contact item 6 has different portions (e.g., items 9 and 17) but is made
from one piece of conductive material that is stamped and formed (bent or
pressed) into the shapes depicted in the figures. See also Davis col. 3, 11. 27-
30. Thus, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner's finding that
Davis teaches the claimed conductor having an integral contact section, and
Appellant's arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejection.
As the first issue is the only issue presented with respect to the
rejection of claims 9 through 14, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 9 through 14 based upon Davis.
Second issue.
Appellant's arguments directed to the second issue assert the
Examiner erred in equating the contact fingers, item 9 of Davis' contact 6,
with the claimed conductor split to form first and second fingers. App. Br
7-8. Appellant argues that the fingers are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 9. App
Br. 7. Appellant states:
Thus, it is clear that these fingers are both components of, and
integral with, the same contact: beam contact 20. Furthermore,
because they are components of the same contact, the fingers of
the present invention are both on the same side of the divider.
The specification confirms this feature, stating that "[t]he
contact divider 90 extends the entire length of the daughtercard
beam contacts 20 to support and also form a barrier between the
daughtercard beam contacts 20 and of the first wafer 210 and
the daughtercard beam contacts 20 of the second wafer." See
6
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
id., i-f [0046]; see also Figure 2 (showing beam contact 20,
entirely on one side of the contact divider 90).
By contrast, Davis simply discloses that the two contacts
are separated. The Examiner notes that the conductor is the
"power contact 6" and that the purportedly analogous split
fingers are "contact fingers 9." (See Office Action of June 10,
2015 at p. 2-5.) Davis states that "a pair of contact fingers 9 on
the power contact 6 are on opposite sides of the divider 7 ... "
Davis, col. 2, lines 28-30 (emphasis added). This results in a
very different structure from claim 15. The split conductor of
the invention is entirely on one side of the contact divider;
whereas the fingers attached to the power contact 6 of Davis
must necessarily straddle a divider 7.
App. Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection by these
arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Davis teaches a portion
of conductor 6 is split at a distal end to form two fingers, portions 9.
Answer 5. See also Davis Figure 3. Further, Appellant's arguments directed
to the Specification teaching the split fingers being on the same side of the
divider and being of different arrangement are not persuasive of error. As
stated by the Examiner (Answer 6), such limitations are not claimed and the
arguments are importing features from the Specification into the claims.
Thus, Appellant's arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 and claims 16
through 22 which are grouped with claim 15.
Third issue.
Appellant's arguments directed to the third issue assert the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 33 and 34, which recite the width of the first and
second fingers together are substantially the same as the width of the distant
7
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
end of the conductor, and claim 35, which recites that that the fingers do not
extend transversely outward. Appellant argues Davis does not teach these
features and that the Examiner's rejection is unclear as to how these features
are taught by Davis.
The Examiner did not respond to these arguments in the Answer. The
Examiner's rejection merely restates the claim limitation and provides a
marked up copy of Davis' Figure 11 as an explanation of how the features
are taught. Final Act. 6.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection and the disclosure of
Davis, and we find that the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence
or provided sufficient explanation as to how the disputed features are
disclosed by Davis. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 33 through 35.
Rejection based upon Schmidt.
Fourth issue.
Appellant's arguments directed to the fourth issue assert the Examiner
erred in finding Schmidt discloses a pivot member and a contact member, as
recited in independent claim 23. Appellant asserts that the bulges (item 42
in Figure 4A of Schmidt) in the contact are not at the intermediate section of
the conductor, but rather at an end. App Br. 9. Further, Appellant argues
that the bulges are not pivots, but rather contact points. Reply Brief 7 (citing
Schmidt col. 4, 11. 7-10).
The Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments, stating that an
intermediate portion can be any point between two end points, and finds that
8
Appeal2017-000687
Application 13/958,029
the bulges 42 are at an intermediate portion. Answer 5-6, Final Act. 7
(citing Schmidt col. 4, 11. 7-10 and Fig. 4A).
Although we concur with the Examiner that, broadly interpreted, the
bulge 42 could be considered to be in an intermediary portion of the contact
beam, the Examiner has not explained and we fail to see, how this bulge
constitutes a pivot. As Appellant points out, Schmidt teaches the "bulges 42
(or comparable designs of the contact elements) constitute a resilient contact
locations." Schmidt col. 4, lines 7-10. Thus, the Examiner has not shown
that Schmidt discloses the pivot recited in independent claim 23 and we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 or claims 24 through 29,
which depend upon claim 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 through 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 23 through 29 and 33
through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRM-IN-PART
9