Ex Parte Eppler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

11636244 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BARRY W. EPPLER
____________

Appeal 2010-004310
Application 11/636,244
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004310
Application 11/636,244

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-14 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. An interconnect assembly, comprising:

a rigid printed circuit assembly having a substrate with
first and second sides in opposition to one another, first and
second plurality of conductive contact pads disposed on the first
and second sides of the substrate, respectively;

first and second bumped flex circuit assemblies having
first and second support plates, respectively, said first and
second plurality of conductive contact bumps extending
inwardly toward one another from the first and second support
plates, respectively, and the first and second plurality of
conductive contact bumps configured for selective engagement
with the first and second plurality of conductive contact pads;
and

a hard stop assembly configured to extend between the
first and second support plates and the first and second sides of
the substrate, respectively, wherein the hard stop assembly
restricts non-uniform motion of the substrate toward the first
and second support plates.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Yatskov (U.S. Patent No. 6,500,010 B2 (filed Mar. 2,
2001)) (Ans. 3-5).
Appeal 2010-004310
Application 11/636,244

3
The Examiner rejected claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yatskov in view of Coico (U.S. Patent No. 6,354,844 B1
(filed Dec. 13, 1999)) (Ans. 5-7).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Yatskov discloses “a hard stop
assembly configured to extend between the first and second support plates
and the first and second sides of the substrate,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 13?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion regarding the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3-11) in
response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief.
We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address certain findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 11, and 13 as anticipated by Yatskov because “[n]owhere does
Appeal 2010-004310
Application 11/636,244

4
Yatskov indicate that the elements 57, 43, 83, 76 form a ‘hard stop
assembly’ of any kind” (App. Br. 8). Appellant further argues that Yatskov
does not disclose a hard stop assembly because the fasteners 43 in Yatskov
are adjustable because they “engage threads in the holes 76, allowing the
space between the clamping members to be adjusted by rotating the fasteners
43” (id. at 9). Appellant then reasons “that posts 57 never meet a hard stop”
(id.).
Our reviewing Court, however, requires us to give a claim its broadest
reasonable meaning consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). And Appellant’s specification refers to a hard
stop assembly as restricting “non-uniform motion of the substrate toward the
first and second support plates” (Spec. ¶ [0003]). The specification further
explains that the hard stop assembly prevents “distortion of substrate 426”
(Spec. ¶ [0027]). Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, “[j]ust because
Yatskov can make an adjustment doesn’t mean a hard stop of movement can
not be made” (Ans. 9). Indeed, Yatskov’s assembly forms a hard stop at the
“point that the threading is stopped” (id.). In particular, Yatskov discloses
that “a lower threaded portion of the front fasteners 43, (see FIGS. 2 and 12),
engages a thread in the hole 76 of the second clamping member 60, while a
head portion 77 of the front fastener 43 engages a well 85 in the hole of the
first clamping member 58” (Yatskov, col. 8, ll. 55-59). Accordingly, under
the proper claim construction, the elements of Yatskov’s assembly form a
hard stop at the point where the threading in the fastener is stopped in the
threading of the hole to restrict non-uniform motion and distortion of the
substrate as required by independent claims 1, 11 and 13.
Appeal 2010-004310
Application 11/636,244

5
Appellant also argues that Yatskov’s assembly does not need to form
a hard stop because “Yatskov discloses structures to control deformation
including pressure pads 23 which have raised edges 48 to help evenly
distribute pressure” (App. Br. 9). Appellant further argues that, in light of
Yatskov’s statements that adjustments may be made to Yatskov’s assembly,
that the assembly does not form a hard stop because “[o]therwise, there
would be no adjustment available to compensate for fatigue of the metal and
rubber components in Yatskov’s design” (App. Br. 9). These arguments,
however, are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims
do not preclude a device that includes additional means beyond a hard stop
to help to control deformation or fatigue (See e.g., Claims 1, 11, and 13).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 13. We also find no error in the Examiner’s
rejections of the other claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-10, 12, and 14)
because Appellant did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for
those claims (See App. Br. 10-11).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw