EATON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2020

15083478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 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.
15/083,478 03/29/2016 LAURA TERESA PORTUONDO BAUTISTA 15-MCB-1465 3819
101730 7590 07/30/2020
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
EATON CORPORATION
600 GRANT STREET
44TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
EXAMINER
BARNES, MALCOLM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2020 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):
ipmail@eckertseamans.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LAURA TERESA PORTUONDO BAUTISTA and
GLENNYS JOHANNY JESUS REYES

Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Eaton
Corporation (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a current transformer apparatus
that is electrically connectable with and mountable to a circuit board such as
a printed circuit board (Spec. 1:7–8; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
A current transformer apparatus that is structured to be
electrically connected with and to be mounted to a circuit board
having a plurality of pads that are electrically conductive, the
current transformer apparatus comprising:
a coil apparatus comprising a wire that is wound into a
coil;
a support, the coil apparatus being situated on the
support;
a connection apparatus that comprises a plurality of
electrical contacts and a number of reaction structures situated
on the support, the plurality of electrical contacts comprising a
pair of electrical contacts, an electrical contact of the pair of
electrical contacts having an electrical connection with the wire,
another electrical contact of the pair of electrical contacts
having another electrical connection with the wire, at least one
of at least a first reaction structure of the number of reaction
structures and the plurality of electrical contacts being biased
generally toward the other of the at least first reaction
structure and the plurality of electrical contacts to electrically
connect the plurality of electrical contacts with the plurality of
pads and to compressively engage the circuit board and the
plurality of pads between the plurality of electrical contacts and
the at least first reaction structure to thereby mount the current
transformer apparatus to the circuit board.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Scott (US 4,652,975, issued March 24, 1987)
in view of De Vuyst (US 3,486,163, issued December 23, 1969).
2. Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Scott in view of De Vuyst and Coller (US 4,558,912, issued
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

3
December 17, 1985).
3. Claims 8–10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Scott in view of De Vuyst, Coller, and Chin
(US 6,753,749 B1, issued June 22, 2004).
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Scott, De Vuyst, Coller, Chin, and Imamura2 (US 4,855,866,
issued August 8, 1989).
Appellant argues claim 1 only with regard to rejections (1) to (4)
(Appeal Br. 3–8). Therefore, any claim not argued separately will stand or
fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of
claim 1 over Scott in view of De Vuyst are located on pages 3–4 of the Final
Action.
Appellant argues that Scott’s biasing of the spring contacts 18, 19
against the metal pins 30, 33 to electrically connect the spring contacts with
the pins does not mount the current transformer apparatus to the circuit
board (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends that Scott’s snapping engagement
of notched posts 22, 23 into slots 24, 25 on the insulated body 35 refers to
mechanical elements engaging other mechanical elements to connect the

2 The Final Action incorrectly lists the Imamura patent number as US
5,872,489 (Final Act. 9). The correct patent number is listed in our
statement of the rejection. The Examiner included the correct Imamura
patent number in the Notice of References Cited (Form 892) dated
November 30, 2017. We find the Examiner’s mistake in transcribing the
patent number to be harmless error.
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

4
structures together, and not an electrical connection (Appeal Br. 4).
Appellant argues that De Vuyst does not disclose mounting of a current
transformer apparatus to a circuit board (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends
that De Vuyst is directed to a scenario where the board 7 and contact
element 2 are both already mounted to another structure, and where
misalignment can be accommodated by the living hinge 8 (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant argues that based on this scenario De Vuyst teaches the opposite
of mounting a current transformer to the circuit board (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 requires, inter
alia, electrical contacts and reaction structures that are:
biased generally toward the other of the at least first reaction
structure and the plurality of electrical contacts . . . to compressively
engage the circuit board and the plurality of pads between the
plurality of electrical contacts and the at least first reaction structure
to thereby mount the current transformer apparatus to the circuit
board.

Thus, claim 1 requires that the reaction structures and the electrical
contacts are biased toward one another to compressively engage the circuit
board and the pads.
With this claim construction in mind, we review the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner finds that Scott teaches spring contacts 18, 19 that
electrically connect with pins 30, 33 on the printed wiring board 35 and
notched posts 22, 23 which “snappingly” engage the slots 24, 25 on printed
wiring board 35 (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Scott’s
notched posts 22, 23 correspond to the reaction members and spring contacts
18, 19 correspond to the electrical contacts (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds
that Scott mounts the transformer winding 13 on the printed wiring board 35
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

5
using the notched posts 22, 23 and spring contacts 18, 19, which meets the
claim requirement that mounts a current transformer apparatus on the circuit
board (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that Scott does not
teach using electrically conductive pads which are biased by the first
reaction structure and the plurality of electrical contacts electrically connect
with the plurality of pads and compressively engage the circuit board and the
plurality of pads (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that De Vuyst teaches a
circuit board having a plurality of electrically conductive pads which are
biased between a first reaction structure 4 and plurality of electrical contact
pads (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Scott to include the U-shaped connector and circuit board
of De Vuyst in order to provide a pair of opposed contact surfaces 6 to be
urged into engagement with opposite sides of a printed circuit board 7
inserted therebetween as taught by De Vuyst (Final Act. 5).
We agree with the Examiner that Scott’s notched posts 22, 23 and
spring contacts 18, 19 which engage the printed wiring board 35 and the
posts 30, 31 thereon meet the claim requirement of at least a first reaction
structure biased toward an electrical contact and compressively engage the
circuit board. Scott’s spring contacts provide a force directed toward the
notched posts and together they connect to the printed wiring board 35 by
snapping engagement of the notched post into the slots 28 and 31 (Figure 1
col. 2, ll. 50–55, 66–68, col. 3, ll. 1–2). Scott uses pins 30, 33, and not the
claimed plurality of pads, for electrical connection (Scott, col. 2, ll. 66–68,
col. 3, ll. 1–10). The Examiner’s rejection is based on modifying Scott’s
attachment mechanism to use De Vuyst’s edge attachment mechanism that
both mechanically holds and electrically connects the circuit board 7 and
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

6
pads thereon to post 3 via connector housing 1 (Final Act. 4–5). The
Examiner determines that the combined teachings would have suggested a
transformer mounted on a circuit board via an edge attachment of the
transfer to pads on the edge of the circuit board (Ans. 4). We agree.
Appellant’s arguments that Scott’s notched posts provide a
mechanical connection to the circuit board, not an electrical connection, fails
to appreciate that claims only require that the electrical contacts, not the first
reaction structure, form an electrical connection. According to claim 1, the
first reaction structure and electrical contacts are biased toward one another
and the electrical contacts electrically connect the electrical contacts with the
pads. The first reaction structure biases the electrical contact against the pad
according to the claims, which is the same type of arrangement taught by
Scott and De Vuyst, where the opposing contact surfaces 6 of De Vuyst are
directed toward one another (Scott, Figure 1, col. 2, ll. 50–55, 66–68, col. 3,
ll. 1–2; De Vuyst, col. 2, ll. 33–36).
Moreover, the Specification includes embodiments where the first
reaction structure and the electrical contact are not formed as a U-shaped
member (i.e., where the first reaction structure and electrical contacts are
connected) (See Spec. 6:14–20). In those embodiments, the base wall 48
and other structures in the platform 40 would serve as the reaction structure
situated to oppose the bias by the aforementioned alternative electrical
contacts (Spec. 6:17–20). Claim 1 as drafted does not require a U-shaped
configuration where the first reaction structure is connected to the electrical
contact.
Appellant’s arguments that De Vuyst is directed to a scenario where
the board 7 and contact element 2 are both already mounted to another
Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

7
structure, and where misalignment can be accommodated by the living hinge
8, attacks the rejection in a piecemeal fashion (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner
finds that Scott teaches attaching a transformer to a circuit board but does
not teach the use of pads along the edge of the circuit board (Final Act. 3–4).
The Examiner relies on De Vuyst to teach the use of pads on a circuit board
and a clamping structure to attach the circuit board mechanically and
electrically to another structure (Final Act. 4). In other words, the Examiner
determines that the combined teachings would have suggested modifying
Scott’s device to use De Vuyst’s attachment mechanism (Final Act. 4).
Appellant’s arguments do not show reversible error with regard to this
rejection. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that De
Vuyst’s structure is used where a circuit board is attached to another
member already attached to another device using contact element 2, claim 1
does not exclude the current transformer from being attached to a larger
device to which the circuit board is attached or detached therefrom.
Appellant’s argued distinction is not reflected in the claim language.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–
4 and 13 over Scott in view of De Vuyst. The § 103 rejections of claims 5–
7, and 8–12 are affirmed for the same reasons as discussed with regard to
claim 1.

Appeal 2019-004656
Application 15/083,478

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 13 103 Scott, De Vuyst 1–4, 13
5–7 103 Scott, De Vuyst,
Coller
5–7
8–10, 12 103 Scott, De Vuyst,
Coller, Chin
8–10, 12
11 103 Scott, De Vuyst,
Coller, Chin,
Imamura
11
Overall
Outcome
1–13

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

AFFIRMED