Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2013

10742670 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013)

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.
10/742,670 12/19/2003 Brett A. Williams 1302-154 6239
109667 7590 06/06/2013
Lockheed Martin MFC and
Withrow & Terranova, PLLC
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
A, MINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2821
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2013 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 BRETT A. WILLIAMS, BRIAN C. BAKER, and
WAYNE K. SCHROEDER
_____________

Appeal 2010-011830
Application 10/742,670
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011830
Application 10/742,670
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 10 and 16.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a contact element of an electrical socket
that can serve as both an electrical contact when in contact with a pin of a
mating connector or as a waveguide for wireless communications when not
in contact with a mating connector. Paragraphs 2, 3, 33 through, 36, Figures
13 and 14 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 10 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:

10. A combination antenna-conductor connector comprising:
a support member; and
a contact element, supported by the support member, for mating with
a pin element of an opposing connector to receive a wired communication
and for serving as a waveguide for at least one of transmitting and receiving
a wireless communication.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Rada (U.S. 2004/0257284 A1; Dec. 23, 2004). Answer 3.
1

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated January 18,
2010, Reply Brief dated July 26, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on May 27, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011830
Application 10/742,670
3

ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments on pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal
Brief and pages 3 through 8 of the Reply Brief directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 10. The issue raised by these arguments
which is dispositive of the appeal is: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Rada teaches a contact of a combination antenna-conductor connector,
where the contact is supported by a support member and the contact receives
wired communication when mated with a pin of an opposing connector and
serves as a wave guide for transmitting/receiving wireless communication as
recited in claim 10?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 10. Claim 10 recites a contact of a
combination antenna-conductor connector, where the contact is supported by
a support member and the contact receives wired communication when
mated with a pin of an opposing connector and serves as a waveguide for
transmitting/receiving wireless communication. The Examiner has equated
the claimed contact with Rada’s removable antenna (item 420 or 440, Fig.4)
and the claimed support member with Rata’s base unit (item 410, Fig. 4).
Answer 4. We disagree with the Examiner’s application of the reference to
the claim. As argued by Appellants, the antenna is not a contact element.
Reply Brief 3. The Examiner has not shown that Rada’s antenna mates with
a pin of an opposing connector and is supported by a support member. We
note that claim 10 recites the support member, which supports the contact, is
Appeal 2010-011830
Application 10/742,670
4

a separate element from the opposing connector. Thus, even if we were to
accept the Examiner’s interpretation of Rada’s base unit as a support
member, there is no element to meet the claimed opposing connector.
Further, though the antenna element may have a contact associated with the
connector to the base unit, the Examiner has not shown that this contact both
receives wired communication and serves as a waveguide for
transmitting/receiving wireless communication. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10 and 16 is reversed.

REVERSED
dw