Ex Parte Spengler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 2009

10884330 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID LOUIS SPENGLER
____________

Appeal 2008-5895
Application 10/884,330
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 February 11, 2009
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, 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, 6-8, 13-15, and 20, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal No. 2008-5895
Application 10/884,330

The Invention
The Appellant claims an electronics cabinet and an electronic module
comprising an electronic connector having a row of a plurality of power
contacts and an immediately adjacent corresponding row of like plurality of
ground contacts. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An electronics cabinet comprising:

an electrical connector in operable electrical communication with a
printed circuit board (PCB) power plane via connector power and ground
planes defined by a row of a plurality of power contacts commonly
connected to the PCB power plane and an immediately adjacent
corresponding row of a like plurality of ground contacts, each corresponding
power and ground contact set being substantially equally spaced apart; and

a power terminal contactingly engaging the PCB power plane, for
externally communicating power therewith, and disposed symmetrically in
relation to a perpendicular bisector axis of the rows.

The References
Hazlett 3,405,227 Oct. 8, 1968
Perino 6,287,132 B1 Sep. 11, 2001
Egan 6,727,435 B1 Apr. 27, 2004
The Rejections
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Perino in view of Hazlett and Egan.
OPINION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
Issue
Has the Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Perino would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, an electrical connector having a row of a plurality
2
Appeal No. 2008-5895
Application 10/884,330

of power contacts and an immediately adjacent corresponding row of like
plurality of ground contacts?2

Findings of Fact
Perino discloses, in the Figure 5 embodiment relied upon by the
Examiner (Ans. 3, 5), an electrical connector having alternate proximal
pins (550) and distal pins (540) (col. 4, ll. 6-7; Fig. 5). Distal pins 540 carry
signals, while proximal pins 550 are ground and/or power signals (col. 4,
ll. 12-14). Two rows of distal pins and two rows of proximal pins are
arranged such that a distal pin 540 in an outer row faces another distal pin in
the other outer row, and a proximal pin 550 in an inner row faces another
proximal pin in the other inner row (col. 4, ll. 14-16; Fig. 5).
Analysis
As set forth in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007),
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Examiner argues that Perino discloses, in Figure 5, a plurality of
power contacts 550 and an immediately adjacent row of ground contacts 550
(Ans. 5).

2 The Examiner does not rely upon Hazlett or Egan for this claim
requirement (Ans. 3-4). Hence, we need not further address these
references.
3
Appeal No. 2008-5895
Application 10/884,330

Perino indicates that one row of proximal pins 550 cannot be ground
while the other row is power, because that would cause shorting between the
power and ground pins next to each other (col. 4, ll. 17-21).
Hence, the proximal pins 550 next to each other in Figure 5 must be
either both ground or both power. Each pair of ground pins is not adjacent
to a pair of power pins, however, because there is an intervening set of distal
pins 540 (Fig. 5). The Appellant defines “immediately adjacent” as meaning
“that there are no other contacts medially disposed between adjacent power
and ground contacts” (Spec. 7:7-9). That definition excludes the
neighboring pairs of ground and power pins having a pair of distal pins
medially between them in Perino’s Figure 5.
Thus, the Examiner has not established that the applied references
disclose, or would have rendered prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art, a row of a plurality of power contacts and an immediately adjacent
corresponding row of like plurality of ground contacts.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Perino would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, an electrical connector having a row of a plurality
of power contacts and an immediately adjacent corresponding row of like
plurality of ground contacts.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Perino in view of Hazlett and Egan is reversed.

4
Appeal No. 2008-5895
Application 10/884,330

It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cam

FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP,
BAILEY & TIPPENS
BANK ONE TOWER
100 NORTH BROADWAY, SUITE 1700
OKLAHOMA, OK 73102-8820
5