Ex Parte ZakDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201412108454 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/108,454 04/23/2008 Juan Zak 1637 52397 7590 08/29/2014 JUAN ZAK VESTRE KIRKEVEJ 2 C, 1. TV. ROSKILDE, 4000 DENMARK EXAMINER FIGUEROA, FELIX O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2014 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 JUAN ZAK ________________ Appeal 2012-010922 Application 12/108,454 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a jumper with an integrated mechanical switch. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A jumper for keeping current configuration values or restoring default configuration values in the CMOS memory of computer motherboards, said jumper comprising: a) three independent generally cylindrical sleeves to be slipped over respectively the first, second and third pin of the CMOS-reset block of a computer motherboard; every said Appeal 2012-00010922 Application 12/108,454 2 sleeve providing a suitable contact area for adequate electrical connection; b) a metallic jumper element that electrically interconnects said sleeves via said contact areas; said jumper element being shaped such that only the first and second of said sleeves, or only the second and third of said sleeves, are interconnected at the same time; said jumper element having as well suitable contact areas for adequate electrical connection with said sleeves, two of said contact areas being located close to each end of said jumper element, and the third of said contact areas being located midway between said first and second contact areas; c) an electrically non-conductive housing that fixedly embeds said sleeves, and at the same time encloses said jumper element such that said element is only allowed to move as to interconnect either the first and second of said sleeves, or the second and third of said sleeves; d) an elastic element mounted between said jumper element and said housing, such that said elastic element pushes against said jumper element through an area physically contacting said jumper element, and such that said elastic element simultaneously pushes against said housing through an area physically contacting said housing, said elastic element driving said jumper element to fully contact and thus interconnect said first and second sleeves; and, e) a reset button to manually actuate said jumper element against said elastic element, in order to break the electrical connection between the first and second of said sleeves, and make an electrical connection between the second and third of said sleeves; said reset button being mounted in said housing such that: said button when fully released into a normally released position allows said elastic element to drive said jumper element against said first and second sleeves; said button when fully actuated forces said jumper element to fully contact said second and third sleeves; and, said button when released is urged into and kept in said normally released position directly by said jumper element. Appeal 2012-00010922 Application 12/108,454 3 The References Krehbiel US 3,275,766 Sept. 27, 1966 Holzer US 3,731,030 May 1, 1973 Stanish US 4,052,580 Oct. 4, 1977 Matsubara JP 6-242 A Jan. 11, 1994 The Rejection Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Holzer in view of Matsubara, Krehbiel and Stanish.1 OPINION We reverse the rejections. The Appellant’s claims require a button which, when released, is urged into and kept in a normally released position directly by a jumper element. To meet that claim limitation the Examiner relies upon the combination of Holzer and Stanish (Ans. 5). Holzer discloses a push-button switch (1, 2) comprising a compression spring (9) which “does not yet touch contact bridge 15 [which corresponds to the Appellants’ jumper element], so that it would assure a definite switching position when the push-button switch has not been depressed” (col. 2, ll. 33-36; Fig. 2). “When releasing push-button head 1, 2, the push button again will return to its original position because of the power of compression spring 17” (col. 2, ll. 36-39). Stanish discloses a push switch comprising a molded, unitary housing member (35) including an actuator button (36) extending upwardly from a 1 A rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Matsubara in view of Holzer, Krehbiel and Stanish is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2). Appeal 2012-00010922 Application 12/108,454 4 horizontal top portion (38) having, in its underside and extending into the interior of the actuator button (36), a recess (51) into which a bridging contact (55)’s U-shaped central portion (57) is held by a spring (63) which exerts an upward force against the bridging contact (55) and the housing member (35) (col. 2, ll. 5-8, 21-28, 35-46; Fig. 1a). The Examiner argues that “mere contact between [Holzer’s] spring (9) and the jumper element (15) does not necessarily impede the jumper from being in the definite (normally released) switching position” (Ans. 15) and that “[m]oving the jumper (15) from its definite (normally released) switching position would require enough force (not just contact) to overcome the spring (8) of Holzer.” Id. That argument is unpersuasive as being inconsistent with Holzer’s disclosure (col. 2, ll. 33-36) and unsupported by evidence. The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the button of Holzer (1, 2, 5, 9) being directly urged and kept in the release position (i.e. close the gap) by the jumper element (15), as taught by Stanish, in order to simplify construction and provide a secure and stable mechanism” (Ans. 5). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner has not established that it would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from the applied references that closing the gap between Holzer’s spring (9) and contact bridge (15) would simplify the construction or provide a secure and stable mechanism. The Examiner has Appeal 2012-00010922 Application 12/108,454 5 provided mere speculation to that effect, and such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Holzer in view of Matsubara, Krehbiel and Stanish is reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation