Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

12287931 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/287,931 10/14/2008 Lin Huang 1237
25859 7590 12/19/2013
WEI TE CHUNG
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1650 MEMOREX DRIVE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 LIN HUANG and YU-SAN HSIAO
______________

Appeal 2011-010432
Application 12/287,931
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the
Primary Examiner finally rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over
Zhang (US 7,445,503 B1). We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.
OPINION
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants and the Examiner is the
broadest reasonable construction of the claim language, with reference to
Specification Figures 2 and 5, “each extension arm (24) [of metallic shell 2]
Appeal 2011-010432
Application 12/287,931
2
further includes a horizontal interface [sic, interference] tab,[1] and the
[insulative] housing (3) defines a pair of vertical slots (311) each receiving
the corresponding horizontal interference tab.” App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x).
On this record, we agree with Appellants that the plain meaning of the term
“horizontal interference tab” in the context of claim 13 is that “the whole
structure of the tab” is “horizontal” relative to the vertical extension arms.
App. Br. 10; see Reply Br. 1. Indeed, we find that, as the Examiner points
out, the term “horizontal” does not appear in the Specification, and thus, we
accord the term its common, dictionary meaning of “[a]t right angles to a
vertical line” which is the orientation of the tab relative to the extension
arms as specified in claim 13.2 Spec. ¶¶ 0006, 0018, 0019. Ans. 4-5. We
do not find basis in the language of claim 13 or in the Specification to read
the structure of interference tab 243 illustrated in Specification Figures 2 and
5, as a limitation into claim 13. Indeed, we find that Figures 2 and 5 would
have described to one skilled in the art interference tab 243 having an initial
portion which inclines from the vertical side of the extension arm to the
horizontal end portion 2431, such that the whole structure of illustrated
interference tab 243 is not horizontal as specified in claim 13.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
maintaining that the horizontal edge of Zhang’s otherwise obliquely angled
tab 333 meets the “horizontal interference tab” limitation of claim 13 which
requires that the whole tab structure must be horizontal as we interpreted the

1 Cf. tabs 243 having edge 2431. Specification filed January 13, 2009, ¶¶
0018, 0019, Figs. 2, 5.
2 horizontal 846 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language 108 (4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000).
Appeal 2011-010432
Application 12/287,931
3
claim above. Ans. 4; App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1.
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation, we
reverse the ground of rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cam