12003588 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2013)

Ex Parte Chikyu

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 9, 2013

12003588 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2013)

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. 12/003,588 12/28/2007 Hisaomi Chikyu 80836(302971) 4892 21874 7590 04/09/2013 EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER ANGWIN, DAVID PATRICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/09/2013 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 HISAOMI CHIKYU ____________________ Appeal 2010-010880 Application 12/003,588 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRETT C. MARTIN, and PATRICK R. SCANLON Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010880 Application 12/003,588 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 7 and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention “relates to a manufacturing apparatus for wiring harnesses.” Spec. 1:6-7. Claim 7, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below (emphasis added): 7. A manufacturing method for wire harness, by inserting a terminal into a connector housing which is supported at a connector supporting jig by using a terminal inserting device, comprising the steps of: measuring and cutting a wire in a predetermined length; joining a separate terminal to each end of the cut wire; holding the each end of the wire with terminals at two holders adjacent each other; transferring the two holders holding the each end of the wire with terminals in a transferring direction by a transferring device; picking up the both ends of the wire at a predetermined position in the transferring direction from the transferring device by a pair of chucks, each said chuck picking up one of the both ends of the wire; chucking the both ends of the wire with terminals fed through the pair of chucks, each end of the wire being fed through one of the pair of chucks, by a pair of terminal inserting heads as the terminal inserting device, the pair of terminal inserting heads moving freely independently of Appeal 2010-010880 Application 12/003,588 3 each other at least in a direction of a row of the connector housings; and inserting the terminals at the both ends simultaneously into each of the connector housings. The Rejections and Evidence Relied Upon The following rejections are before us on appeal: 1. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yutaka1 (JP10112229; pub. Apr. 28, 1998) and Endo (US 6,056,598; iss. May 2, 2000). 2. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yutaka, Endo, and Fujishima (US 6,148,505; iss. Nov. 21, 2000). 3. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yutaka, Endo, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). 4. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yutaka, Endo, Fujishima, and AAPA. OPINION Claims 7 and 8 over Yutaka and Endo The method of claim 7 includes the step of simultaneously inserting the terminals at each end of the cut wire into the connector housing. The Examiner found that Yutaka discloses the manufacturing method of claim 7 except that Yutaka discloses inserting the terminals at both ends of a wire at approximately the same time, rather than simultaneously as called for in claim 7. Ans. 4-5 (citing Yutaka Figure 48 and paras. 175-176). 1 Referred to by Appellant as “JP '229,” and by the Examiner as “JP H10- 112229.” See e.g., Br. 4; Ans. 3. We make reference to a machine translation of this reference herein. Appeal 2010-010880 Application 12/003,588 4 The Examiner found that Endo discloses, “simultaneously fully inserting a group of terminals into a connector housing.” Ans. 5 (citing Endo, Abstract; fig. 8). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to insert the terminals at both ends simultaneously into each of the connector housings to quickly and effectively adjust and secure terminals to the connector housing. Ans. 5, 8-9. We examine the references in light of the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. The portion of Yutaka cited by the Examiner provides no information regarding the temporal relationship of insertion of each terminal 31 at the ends of electric wire 30. See Ans. 4-5 (citing Yutaka Figure 48 and paras. 175-176). Rather, Yutaka discloses partial insertion of terminal 31 of electric wire 30 into terminal accommodating chamber 91 of connector housing 90 followed by the step of complete insertion of terminal 31 into connector housing 90. Yutaka, para. 176-177; fig. 50; see also Br. 5. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Yutaka discloses inserting the terminals at both ends of a wire at approximately the same time is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. Regarding Endo, Appellant correctly observes that Endo discloses “simultaneous completion of insertion of a plurality of terminals which have already been partially inserted in the connector housing in a separate operation.” Br. 5; Endo, Abstract. Thus, Endo discloses sequentially inserting the terminals at each end of the wire into the connector housing followed by simultaneously seating those ends. Contra. Ans. 5. Given that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon findings that are insufficiently supported by the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 7 or its dependent claim 8. Appeal 2010-010880 Application 12/003,588 5 Remaining Rejections2 Each of the remaining rejections relies upon the same erroneous findings regarding Yutaka and Endo utilized for the rejection of claim 7. Ans. 5-8. Thus, these rejections suffer from the same shortcomings as the first rejection, supra. See Br. 5-6 (repeating the arguments used for the patentability of claim 7 for each of these rejections). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7 and 8. REVERSED Klh 2 Rejections 2-4.