Ex Parte Zahnen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2005

10263275 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES L. ZAHNEN
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MCQUADE, NASE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
James L. Zahnen appeals from the final rejection (mailed
October 15, 2003) of claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 37, all of
the claims pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to slip-fit electrical connectors for
electrical power transformers and to methods for making same.
Representative claims 1 and 34 read as follows:
1. A slip-fit electrical connector compatible with different
size threaded transformer studs and comprising:
a body having a plurality of transverse conductor receiving
passageways therein, and a plurality of conductor fastener
receiving passageways therein intersecting respective transverse
conductor receiving passageways;
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
2
1 Considered in light of the underlying disclosure, the recitations in
independent claims 1 and 13 of the conductor fasteners would more be more
accurate if they defined the locations of the fasteners as being in the
conductor fastener receiving passageways rather than in the conductor
receiving passageways.
2 In the event of further prosecution before the examiner, claim 34
should be amended to include the bracketed wording shown above to correct an
evident typographical omission. Steps also should be taken to correct (1) the
lack of foundation in claim 8 for the recitation of a “second” radius of
(continued...)
a plurality of conductor fasteners in respective
conductor receiving passageways;
said body also having a multi-size transformer stud
receiving passageway extending inwardly from an end thereof, and
at least one stud fastener receiving passageway therein
intersecting the multi-size transformer stud receiving
passageway; and
at least one stud fastener in the at least one stud
fastener receiving passageway;
the multi-size transformer stud receiving passageway
being defined by a smooth arcuate bottom, and a plurality
of successively larger threaded stud landings with a lowermost
threaded stud landing being bifurcated by the smooth arcuate
bottom, and each successive threaded stud landing being
bifurcated by a prior threaded stud landing, the threaded stud
landings being compatible with different size threaded
transformer studs.1
34. A method for making a slip-fit electrical connector for
a threaded transformer stud comprising:
forming, in a body, a plurality of transverse conductor
receiving passageways, and a plurality of conductor fastener
receiving passageways intersecting respective transverse
conductor receiving passageways;
forming, in the body, a transformer stud receiving
passageway extending longitudinally inwardly from an end thereof
[by drilling] at least one bore and forming at least one set of
threads along surfaces of the at least one bore using helical
interpolation; and
forming, in the body, at least one stud fastener
receiving passageway intersecting the transformer stud receiving
passageway.2
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
3
2(...continued)
curvature due to the absence of any preceding recitation of a “first” radius
of curvature and (2) the lack of antecedent basis in claim 22 for the
recitation of “the arcuate top.”
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Kraft 4,214,806 Jul. 29, 1980
Ashcraft et al. 6,579,131 Jun. 17, 2003
(Ashcraft)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ashcraft in view of
Kraft.
Attention is directed to the brief (filed April 22, 2004)
and answer (mailed June 22, 2004) for the respective positions of
the appellant and examiner regarding the merits of this
rejection.
DISCUSSION
I. The merits of the examiner’s rejection
Ashcraft, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses “a
slip-fit transformer stud electrical connector, and more
particularly, a connector which accommodates in the same slip-fit
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
4
hole two different transformer stud sizes” (column 1, lines 6
through 9). The connector 10, conventionally made of aluminum,
includes an upper tier portion 14, a lower tier portion 15,
horizontal port openings 17-20, 22 and 23 for receiving
conductors, tapped holes 26-29, 32 and 33 intersecting respective
port openings for receiving jam screws to clamp the conductors in
place, a blind hole 38 for slip-fit connection to the stud 11 of
a transformer 12, and tapped holes 50 and 51 intersecting the
blind hole for receiving jam screws 52 and 53 to clamp the stud
within the blind hole. Noting that transformer studs typically
come in two sizes, Ashcraft provides the blind hole 38 “with
circumferential arc recesses which are sized and threaded to
match the threads on the two different size studs” (Abstract).
In this regard, Ashcraft teaches that
the hole 38 is formed by a primary, secondary and
tertiary drilling step on three different centers shown
at 40, 41 and 42. The centers as seen in FIG. 4 are
vertically aligned and yet spaced. The drill or
diameter on each center also varies with the diameter
on the upper center 40 being the largest. The
intermediate center 41 has an intermediate diameter,
and the bottom or lower center 42 has the smallest
diameter.
Typically, stud sizes may be either 5/8" or 1" and
the intermediate and smaller lower diameter are
designed to accommodate these stud sizes. . . . The
largest arc shown at the top at 45 forms the majority
of the wall of the hole and is unthreaded. The
intermediate diameter forms two smaller circumference
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
5
arcs shown at 46 and 47 which are positioned
symmetrically on each side of the lowermost
circumference arc 48 formed by the center 42. Only the
smaller circumference arcs 46, 47 and 48 are threaded.
The arcs 46 and 47 are provided with threads which
match the threads on the larger or 1" stud. The
smaller circumference arc at the center bottom
indicated at 48 is provided with threads which match
the smaller or 5/8" stud, for example. The edge of the
entire hole is chamfered as indicated at 49 in FIGS. 2
and 3.
. . .
The larger circumference being unthreaded permits
the connector quickly to be slipped over the threaded
stud regardless of size with the jam screws retracted.
As illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, the tightening of the
jam screws will clamp the larger stud seen at 55
against the threaded circumference arcs 46 and 47
symmetrically on each side of the circumference arc 48.
Since the threaded portions of the circumference arcs
46 and 47 match the threads on the stud 55, the
tightening of the jam screw provides a large surface
area of precision contact between the connector and the
stud threads.
For the smaller studs such as seen at 56 in FIG.
5, the jam screws are simply tightened down further to
press the stud into the circumference arc 48 or cusp
which intersects the arcs 46 and 47 to provide the
intimate contact between the threads of the stud 56 and
the internal threads on the arc 48. With the same
blind hole, the connector may readily be connected to
either size stud, and with the meshing matching
threads, a large surface area of precision contact is
provided which provides both a stable connection and an
efficient cool running and long service life connection
[column 4, line 18, through column 5, line 8].
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in the
answer), Ashcraft does not meet the limitations in independent
claim 1, or the corresponding limitations in independent claims
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
6
13, 18 and 26, requiring the multi-size transformer stud
receiving passageway to be defined in part by a smooth or
unthreaded arcuate bottom which bifurcates a lowermost threaded
stud landing. To overcome this deficiency, the examiner turns to
Kraft.
Kraft, which is acknowledged as prior art by Ashcraft (see
column 1, lines 51 through 55), discloses a transformer stud
electrical connector 20 having an over-sized threaded aperture 40
designed to be slid over a threaded transformer stud 38 and
clamped thereto by a set screw 42. The configuration of the
aperture 40 ensures a secure connection with the stud 38:
[t]o facilitate stability of the locking
interengagement, aperture 40 is provided with a
U-shaped groove or recess 54 formed in its bottom
portion with the center of the U-shaped recess 54 in
alignment with the axis of the threaded lower end
portion 52 of set screw 42. The recess extends
sufficiently along the length of aperture 40 so that it
is in vertical alignment with the press screw. Thus,
when set screw 42 is threaded downward into engagement
with stud 38 as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, it will engage
the top of the stud 38 and the stu[d] bottom will be
engaged at two points, the two edges 56 and 58 at both
sides of the U-shaped groove 54. A three point contact
is made with the stud 38 with points 56 and 58 being
offset from the direct vertical point contact at the
end of set screw 42 so that a triangular configuration
of forces is provided to hold the stud in position and
resist movement from any forces applied to the
connector [column 3, lines 26 through 43].
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
7
Combining Ashcraft and Kraft to reject the appealed claims,
the examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to modify
the bottom of stud receiving passageway [38] of Ashcraft et al.
and provide a smooth or unthreaded arcuate passageway at the
bottom as taught by Kraft, so that a triangular configuration of
forces is provide[d] to hold the stud in position” (answer, pages
3 and 4). Ashcraft, however, effectively teaches away from any
such modification by criticizing the triangular locking
arrangement disclosed by Kraft as providing minimal surface area
pressure contact between the connector and the transformer stud
(see Ashcraft at column 1, lines 51 through 55). Ashcraft
maximizes this surface area of pressure contact by providing the
slip-fit hole in the connector with arc recesses which are sized
and threaded to match the threads on different size studs. The
proposed modification of the Ashcraft connector in view of Kraft
would actually decrease this desired surface area of pressure
contact, and hence lower the quality of the mechanical and
electrical connection afforded by Ashcraft’s blind hole design.
In this light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for
combining Ashcraft and Kraft in the manner advanced by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived
from the appellant’s disclosure.
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
8
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 18 and 26, and
dependent claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 17, 19
through 25 and 27-33, as being unpatentable over Ashcraft in view
of Kraft.
As indicated above, independent claim 34 recites a method
for making a slip-fit electrical connector for a threaded
transformer stud comprising, inter alia, the step of forming a
transformer stud receiving passageway by drilling at least one
bore and forming at least one set of threads along surfaces of
the bore “using helical interpolation.” The use of helical
interpolation to form threads is a well known expedient in the
milling art whereby, as acknowledged by the appellant, “a thread
milling machine causes two axes to move in a circular path as a
third axis moves in a linear path as will be appreciated by those
skilled in the art” (specification, page 10). In rejecting claim
37, the examiner chose not to cite this prior art practice as
evidence of obviousness. Instead, the examiner relies solely on
the combined teachings of Ashcraft in view of Kraft to make the
rejection, but fails to cogently explain how or why such
teachings would have suggested the use of helical interpolation
specified in the claim. The examiner’s position that the subject
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
9
claim limitation is met merely because the corresponding threads
disclosed by the references are helical in nature (see page 5 in
the answer) finds no evidentiary support in either reference.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 34, and dependent claims
35 through 37, as being unpatentable over Ashcraft in view of
Kraft.
II. Remand to the examiner
The application is remanded to the examiner to determine
whether Ashcraft and/or Kraft, considered in conjunction with the
admitted prior art practice of forming threads by helical
interpolation, would have rendered the subject matter recited in
any one of claims 34-37 obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), and if so to enter an appropriate rejection. Using claim
34 as an example, it would appear that the only difference
between the subject matter claimed and that disclosed by Ashcraft
lies in the recitation of helical interpolation to form the
threads in the transformer stud receiving passageway.
SUMMARY
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
Page 10
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6
and 8 through 37 is reversed, and the application is remanded to
the examiner for further consideration.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2005-1571
Application No. 10/263,275
Page 11
ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A.
1401 CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
P. O. BOX 3791
ORLANDO, FL 32802-3791