Ex Parte Tomasino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2003

09358926 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TSUTOMU IGARASI
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3 and 4, all of the claims pending in the present
application. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a no-crimp electrical connector for
connecting stranded wires to an end terminal including a
conductive end terminal having an integral bullet-shaped wire
splaying end and an end terminal end. See page 1 of Appellant's
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
2
specification. Referring to Figure 1, a no-crimp electrical
connector incorporating the invention includes an end terminal 10
formed integrally with a bullet-shaped conductive member 11 and a
hollow internally threaded female connector member 12 securely
secured to the conductive end terminal by having portions thereof
molded in the internal annular groove 13. See page 3 of
Appellant's specification. Male connector member 16 is provided
with a throughbore 21. Throughbore 21 has a portion 22 which is
conically shaped to define a wire clamping space between it and
the bullet-shaped member 11 for receiving wire ends which have
been splayed into the space by the bullet-shaped end upon
insertion of the wire in the direction indicated in Figure 3.
The clamped condition is achieved by relatively rotating the
hollow internally threaded female connection member 12 relative
to the rotation of the male connector member 16 in the directions
indicated by the arrows in Figure 4. See page 4 of Appellant's
specification.
Claims 1 and 4 present in the application are reproduced as
follows:
1. A no-crimp electrical connector for connecting a stranded or
lower gauge solid wire electrical wire to an end terminal,
comprising:
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
3
a conductive end terminal having an integral bullet-shaped
wire-splaying end, and an end terminal end selected from a ring
and a spade,
a conductive hollow, internally threaded female connector
member integral with said conductive end terminal and housing
said bullet-shaped wire splaying end,

a male connector member having an externally threaded
surface for threaded engagement with said internally threaded
female connector member, said male connector member having a
throughbore, said throughbore having a first portion which is
conically shaped to define a wire clamping space for wire ends
splayed by said bullet-shaped end upon relative rotation between
said female and male connection members.

4. An electrical connector assembly for manually connecting a
stranded or lower gauge solid wire electrical wire to a selected
one of a ring or spade end terminal, comprising:
a first connector part comprising a conductive bullet-shaped
wire-splaying member, a selected one of said end terminals, and a
hollow internally threaded female connector member selected to
said conductive end terminal and housing said bullet-shaped wire
splaying end, and
a second connector part comprising a male connector member
having an externally threaded surface for threaded engagement
with said internally threaded female connector member, said male
connector member having a throughbore, said throughbore having a
portion which is conically shaped to define a wire clamping space
for wire ends splayed by said bulled-shaped end upon relative
rotation between said female and male connection members.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Wening 3,790,920 Feb. 5, 1974
Lienard FR 0846809 Sep. 26, 1939
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 12, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on May 22, 2001. The Examiner
mailed an Office communication on June 22, 2001, stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lienard and Wening.
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
A. Rejection of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
5
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments." Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the
findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to
make the Lienard female part 1 integral with the Lienard cone 3
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
6
and Lienard threaded member 2 to obtain Appellant's claimed
structural limitation of "a conductive hollow, internally
threaded female connector member integral with said conductive
end terminal and housing said bullet-shaped wire splaying end" as
recited in Appellant's claim 1. See pages 4 and 5 of the appeal
brief and page 2 of the reply brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claims. "[T]he name of the game is
the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Our reviewing court also states in
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989), that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow." Moreover, when interpreting a claim, words of
the claim are generally given their ordinary and accustomed
meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file
history that they were used differently by the inventor. Carroll
Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577,
27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although an inventor is
indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or
her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
7
deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulson, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
"[T]he terms used in the claims bear a 'heavy presumption'
that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that
would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
relevant art." Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
308 F.3d 1193, 1201-02, 64 USPQ 1812, 1818 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in every
case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and
customary meaning is rebutted." (citation omitted). "Indeed,
the intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the
words in a manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning
reflected, for example, in a dictionary definition. In such a
case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must be rejected."
Texas Digital Sys., Inc. 308 F.3d at 1201-02, 64 USPQ at 1818.
Our decision hinges upon what is meant by a conductive
hollow internally threaded female connector member integral with
a conductive end terminal and housing the bullet-shaped wire
splaying member. Appellant's specification states "[a]s shown in
Figure 4, the female connector member 12' may be formed
integrally with the conductive bullet-shaped member 11' and end
terminal 10'."
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
2 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition,
1982, page 687. A copy of the pertinent portions have been
provided.
8
See page 3 of Appellant's specification. Upon our review of
Figure 4, we see that the female connector member 12, the
conductive bullet-shaped member 11 and the end terminal 10 are
all one piece.
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition,
defines integral as "a complete unit; whole."2 Furthermore, we
note that the Appellant has also argued that integral means that
the hollow internal threaded member and the conductive end of the
terminal post are one piece. Appellant points out that Lienard
has a three-piece construction while the applicant only has a
two-piece construction, the male conductor and the female
conductor member. See pages 4 and 5 of the appeal brief.
Therefore, we find that the term "integral" for the purposes of
this application means that the female connector member, the
conductive end terminal and the bullet-shaped wire splaying end
are all made up of one piece.
Turning to Lienard, we find that Lienard fails to teach this
structural limitation. Lienard teaches that the thread post 2 is
totally separate and discrete from female member 1. See Figures
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
9
1 and 2 of Lienard. Therefore, we fail to find that Lienard
teaches or suggests "a conductive hollow, internally threaded
female connector member integral with said conductive end
terminal and housing said bullet-shaped wire splaying end" as
required by Appellant's claims 1 and 3. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
B. Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Upon our review of the scope of Appellant's claim 4, we fail
to find that the language requires a one-piece construction for
the first connector part as claimed. In particular, we note that
Appellant's claim 4 recites
a first connector part comprising a conductive bullet-
shaped wire-splaying member, a selected one of said end
terminals, and a hollow internally threaded female
connector member selected to said conductive end
terminal and housing said bullet-shaped wire splaying
end.
The term "selected" has a broader meaning than the term
"integral" as recited in Appellant's claim 1. The American
Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines "selected"
as "singled out in preference; chosen." Thus, we find that the
claim language does not require that the conductive bullet-shaped
wire splaying member is an integrated single piece with the
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
10
conductive end terminal and bullet-shaped wire splaying end. We
find that the claim does allow for a reading in which the hollow
internally threaded female conductor member is a separate piece
from the conductive end terminal and the bullet-shaped wire
splaying end.
Turning to Lienard, we find that Lienard does teach a
bullet-shaped wire splaying end and conductive end terminal shown
as elements 2 and 3 in Figures 1 and 2. Furthermore, we find
that Lienard teaches a hollow internal threaded female conductor
member shown as 1 in Figures 1 and 2 of Lienard. Furthermore,
Lienard shows that the conductive bullet-shaped wiring splaying
member 3, a selected one of said end terminals 2 and a hollow
internal threaded female conductor member 1 selected to the
conductive internal and housing said bullet-shaped wire splaying
end in Figure 2 when these pieces are put together as a single
conductor part. Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err
in finding that Appellant's claim 4 is broad enough in scope to
read on Lienard. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
11
However, we have sustained the Examiner's rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2001-2649
Application No. 09/358,926
12
PILLSBURY WINTHROP LLP
1600 TYSONS BOULEVARD
MCLEAN, VA 22102