Ex Parte Tyler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2014

12800422 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/800,422 05/14/2010 Adam P. Tyler C3509 5981
22851 7590 02/07/2014
Delphi Technologies, Inc.
M/C 480-410-202
P.O. Box 5052
Troy, MI 48007
EXAMINER
LE, THANH TAM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ADAM P. TYLER, JEFFREY S. CAMPBELL, and
FRANKLIN A. HOLUB
____________

Appeal 2012-001686
Application 12/800,422
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and WHITNEY N.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001686
Application 12/800,422

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 22, 23, 26-28, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
anticipated by ONO (US 5,921,791, issued Jul. 13, 1999).2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
“The invention relates to an electrical connector and, more particularly, to a
system for mating two electrical connectors with each other.” (Spec.3 [0002].)
Independent claim 22 is representative of the invention, and is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
22. An electrical connector comprising:
a housing;
a slide slidably mounted to the housing, wherein the slide is adapted to slide
over a portion of a mating electrical connector when the electrical connector
is connected to the mating electrical connector;
a cam member comprising a caming surface adapted to contact a cam
portion of the mating electrical connector to be directly moved by the cam
portion of the mating electrical connector, wherein the cam member
comprises a gear section with teeth; and
a rack section having teeth engaging the teeth of the cam member, wherein
the cam member is adapted to be rotated by the rack section as the slide is
moved relative to the housing.

We decide the following issue in favor of Appellants and, therefore,
REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22, 23, 26-28, and 41:
Does a preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding that the
limitation of a “cam member comprising a caming surface adapted to contact a
cam portion of the mating electrical connector” (claim 22 (emphasis added); see
also, independent claim 41 (which includes substantially identical language)) reads
on Ono’s member 205 swingably supported through support shaft 211 and slit 224

1 Final Office Action mailed Nov. 19, 2010.
2 Appeal Brief filed Apr. 19, 2011(“App. Br.”).
3 Specification filed May 14, 2010.
Appeal 2012-001686
Application 12/800,422

3
for receiving support shaft 211 (see Ans.4 5 (finding Ono figures 15 and 16 show
“a cam member (205) comprising a caming surface (211) adapted to contact a cam
portion (224) of the mating electrical connector”))?
Appellants concede Ono’s member 205 is a cam for holder 201, but argue
“[t]here is no caming between support shaft 211 and slit 224. . . . [S]lits 224
merely provide an open space for the support shafts 211 to move into,” allowing
“full insertion of the mating connector 204 into the connector 202.” (Reply Br. 5
2-3; see also, App. Br. 4-6.) In support of this argument, Appellants direct us to
Ono column 17, lines 41-45 and 53-55, wherein Ono describes support shaft 211 as
swingably supporting member 205, and slits 224 as corresponding to support shafts
211. (App. Br. 5.)
The Examiner, in the Response to Argument, does not comment on the
disclosure in Ono column 17 (see Ans. 7-8), but maintains Ono “figures 15-17
show [that] when the cam member (205) rotates, an outer surface of the caming
surface (211) slides into a slit of the cam portion (224). . . . [I]t is a sliding piece
that imports [sic, imparts] motion to a pin free to move in a groove on its face
(cam’s definition6). Therefore, the support shaft 211 is the caming surface and the
slit 224 is a cam portion” (id. at 8 (footnote added)).
We agree with Appellants that Ono’s figures do not clearly illustrate caming
between support shaft 211 and slit 224, and the description in Ono column 17

4 Answer mailed Aug. 17, 2011.
5 Reply Brief filed Oct. 14, 2011.
6 The Examiner cites “Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright
1986” to establish the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “cam,” as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, “is a rotating or sliding piece that
imports [sic, imparts] motion to a roller moving against its edge or to a pin free to
move in a groove on its face or that receives motion from such a roller or pin” (id.
at 7).
Appeal 2012-001686
Application 12/800,422

4
favors a finding that “slits 224 are merely clearance slots to allow the leading end
of the housing 220 to extend past the shafts 211.” (App. Br. 6.)
Because the facts relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to support a
finding that Ono explicitly or inherently describes each and every limitation in
independent claims 22 and 41, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22 and 41,
and dependent claims 23 and 26-28 is:
REVERSED

lp