Ex parte Tobias

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2000

08452107 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN M. TOBIAS
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2902
Application No. 08/452,107
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, HECKER and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18, all of the claims
pending in the application.
The invention is directed to an electrical grounding device best illustrated by
reference to representative independent claim 1, reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 1998-2902
Application No. 08/452,107
2
1. A grounding device for conducting current into the earth, comprising:
an electrically conductive base plate; and
a plurality of electrically conductive protrusions integrally affixed to the
plate and extending from only one side thereof;
the device providing a ground for items electrically connected thereto
when the protrusions thereon are engaged into the earth.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Eyerly 4,324,301 Apr. 13, 1982
Claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Eyerly. Claims 3-9 and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Eyerly.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse as the examiner has clearly failed to set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
Each of independent claims 1 and 10 requires, at least, a grounding device for
conducting current into the earth and wherein the device has electrically conductive
protrusions. The examiner specifically points to Figure 3 of Eyerly for a conductive
Appeal No. 1998-2902
Application No. 08/452,107
3
plate 24 having protrusions and a means 32 for electrically connecting the conductive plate
24.
A quick review of Eyerly reveals that element 32 is a conductive connector strap for
conductively connecting the conductive plates 24 but there is absolutely no indication in
Eyerly of any “grounding;” certainly no grounding by the conductive strap 32. Further, the
examiner does not specifically identify what it is in Figure 3 of Eyerly that is being relied on
for the claimed “protrusions.” If the protrusions are formed by the spaces into which the
bolt heads 36 are inserted, it is debatable whether these “protrusions” can be considered
as being “integrally fixed” to a plate. The electrically conductive plate of the claim is said by
the examiner to be conductive plates 24 of Eyerly yet the “plurality of electrically conductive
protrusions integrally affixed to the plate” would also need to be the same conductive
plates 24, so where, in Eyerly, are the claimed protrusions separately identified, but
integral with, the electrically conductive base plate? Moreover, to whatever extent there
are such protrusions identified in Eyerly by the examiner (and we are of the opinion that
such protrusions have not been properly identified by the examiner), there is absolutely no
teaching or suggestion in Eyerly of providing a ground “when the protrusions...are engaged
into the earth,” as required by claims 1 and 10.
Appeal No. 1998-2902
Application No. 08/452,107
4
Since Eyerly is seriously lacking explicitly recited claim limitations, we will not
sustain either the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or the
rejection of claims 3-9 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART N. HECKER ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2902
Application No. 08/452,107
5
COMMANDER
U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS
COMMAND
Amsel-LG-LS
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5010