Bal Seal Engineering, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

2020001204 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
15/633,337 06/26/2017 Joshua Kompa 1129-151.101 5033
22145 7590 09/23/2020
KLEIN, O''NEILL & SINGH, LLP
30 CORPORATE PARK
SUITE 211
IRVINE, CA 92606
EXAMINER
VU, HIEN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
KOS_Docketing@koslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA KOMPA, DAVID WANG, and TONY QUACH
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337
Technology Center 2800
Before ERIC B. CHEN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–3, 6–13, 16–18, and 20, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. A telephonic hearing was held on September 10,
2020. A transcript of the telephonic hearing will be placed in the record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Bal Seal Engineering, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Supp. Appeal Br., Replacement Sheet 2.
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “electrical connectors capable of high
density electrical connections.” Spec. 1:5–6.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A connector assembly comprising:
a pin comprising an insulator material, a groove, and an
electrical contact;
a housing comprising an exterior surface and an interior
surface defining a bore;
a canted coil spring contact;
a direction of insertion of said pin into said bore of said
housing;
wherein the pin comprises an axis in the direction of
insertion;
wherein the canted coil spring contact is retained with the
groove of the pin prior to insertion of the pin into the bore of the
housing;
wherein the electrical contact comprises a contact band
where contact is to be established with the canted coil spring
contact, said contact band at least partially surrounds the
insulator material around the axis of the pin;
wherein said electrical contact comprises a tab extending
from the contact band and along at least a length of the pin; and
wherein the canted coil spring contact establishes an
electrical path between the pin and the housing.
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6–13, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Pavlovic (US 2007/0117433 A1; May 24, 2007),
Changsrivong (US 9,482,255 B2; Nov. 1, 2016), and Kompa
(US 2014/0259617 A1; Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 2.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pavlovic with
Changsrivong and Kompa did not teach away from claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that combining Pavlovic with Changsrivong and
Kompa would change Pavlovic’s principle of operation and render the
combination inoperable for Pavlovic’s intended purpose. Appeal Br. 8–13.
In particular, Appellant argues that “the combination of Pavlovic/
Changsrivong/Kompa cannot solve a major concern addressed by the
Pavlovic design, such as wiping debris and liquid deposits from within the
groove of the combination.” Appeal Br. 11–12.
Pavlovic discloses “vehicle interior power supply connections,” such
as for a removable seat in a vehicle. Pavlovic ¶¶ 5, 7. Pavlovic identifies
the following as one of several concerns for such a connection: “[B]eing that
the electrical connection to a vehicle seat is typically made at the floor level,
an exposed connector may be susceptible to debris and liquids spilled on the
floor which may lead to the corrosion or damage to the electrical contact.”
Id. ¶ 8. Pavlovic solves that particular problem by using a “seal 86” “for
preventing debris from entering the end portion 88 when the power supply
connector 30 and the releasable connector 32 are coupled.” Id. ¶ 35. “As
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337

4
the first and second terminal male contacts 40 and 42 slidingly contact the
seal 86, fluid and debris are wiped from each respective contact.” Id. ¶ 36.
The Examiner determines that Pavlovic’s wiping seal 86 is not
Pavlovic’s principle of operation or intended purpose because “the Examiner
does not think the seal of [the] Pavlovic device as shown in Fig. 5 for wiping
debris could be critical to the current transfer function, but the main concern
should be the pin with terminal contacts 40, 42 for making good connection
with the main body 66” and “therefore, it would have been obvious that the
seal could be omitted in such combination since the seal is not [an] essential
part of the device and the device will operate adequately without wiping.”
Ans. 3. “The principle of operation of [Pavlovic] has not changed since the
combination was used [to] provide a better connection.” Id. at 4.
Given the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the combination would change
Pavlovic’s principle of operation or render the combination inoperable for
Pavlovic’s intended purpose. First, although the seal 86 may be one feature
disclosed in Pavlovic, it does not appear to be a major part of Pavlovic’s
invention. The “seal” is referenced in only three paragraphs of Pavlovic.
Pavlovic ¶¶ 32, 35, 36. The seal is never mentioned in Pavlovic’s Title,
Abstract, or Brief Summary of the Invention. See id. at code (54), Abstract,
¶¶ 9–12. Similarly, the seal is never mentioned in the claims of either the
publication (US 2007/0117433 A1) or the application as originally filed
(11/286,504). Instead, Pavlovic’s Abstract, Brief Summary of the Invention,
and claims all focus on other aspects of Pavlovic, such as a “switching
circuit [that] measures an impedance of the electrical supply system and
selectively energizes the power supply connector” (e.g., “disconnects power
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337

5
to the power supply connector when the impedance is outside of a
predetermined range”). Id. at Abstract. Thus, on the record before us, we
are not persuaded that seal 86 is Pavlovic’s principle of operation or that
Pavlovic sufficiently teaches away from a combination without seal 86.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 2012), is instructive. In that case, the prior art Falk’s claim 1 recited the
term “optical” fifteen times and the specification expressly emphasized the
“fundamental difference” between “optical” and “electrical” systems, yet the
Federal Circuit still agreed with the Board that “eliminating the optical
components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation.” 686 F.3d
at 1331–32; US 5,249,144, at 1:6–17, claim 1 (Sept. 28, 1993). The court
similarly agreed with the Board that Falk’s principle of operation was its
“high level ability” and not limited to a specific “optical” implementation.
Id. at 1332.
The same is true here where Pavlovic’s high level ability (e.g.,
electrical connectors with a switching circuit that disconnects power when
the impedance is outside of a predetermined range) is not limited to one
particular implementation with a wiping seal. At best, the Examiner’s
combination omitting Pavlovic’s wiping seal may be one factor to consider
in whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references, but it is by no means a dispositive change in Pavlovic’s principle
of operation as Appellant suggests.
Second, Appellant has not persuaded us that the problem of debris is
as large as Appellant suggests. Pavlovic suggests that debris or spilled fluid
only occur when a vehicle seat has been removed and one connector is
exposed, but Appellant provides no indication how often a vehicle seat
Appeal 2020-001204
Application 15/633,337

6
would actually be removed. See Pavlovic ¶ 8. Further, the Examiner finds
that “adequate electrical connection can be made without wiping of debris.”
Ans. 4. Indeed, as the Examiner points out, Kompa is assigned to Appellant,
yet Kompa makes no mention of a wiping seal or debris being a problem.
Id.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
Pavlovic teaches away from a combination with Changsrivong and Kompa.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 3, 6–13, 16–18, and 20, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons.2 See Appeal Br. 12–13; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–13,
16–18, 20
103 Pavlovic, Changsrivong,
Kompa
1–3, 6–13,
16–18, 20

TIME TO RESPOND
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

2 Although Appellant introduced a new argument at the hearing with respect
to the limitation in independent claim 16 of “said tip section having a
diameter that is larger than a diameter of the tail section,” this argument was
not in the briefing and therefore was waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52,
any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused
consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”), 41.47(e).