Ex Parte Jollenbeck et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2012

11924434 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2012)

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.
11/924,434 10/25/2007 Andre Jollenbeck 0117842-163 1245
29176 7590 01/04/2012
K&L Gates LLP
P.O. BOX 1135
CHICAGO, IL 60690
EXAMINER
VORTMAN, ANATOLY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDRE JOLLENBECK, FRANK ALTHOFF,
KARIN KOCH, and UTE LEHNHARDT
____________________

Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JEFFREY S.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Claims
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 recites a fuse including a
hollow bodied tubular wall, a fusible conductive element having end
sections, and two contact caps. Claim 10 recites a similar fuse, modified to
have a hollow body with the shape of a square with rounded corners for use
in surface mounted devices (SMDs). Appellants disclose and claim a fuse
having end sections which are secured to the hollow body with adhesive, and
with the provision of an air gap between the hollow body and at least one of
the contact caps to allow for ventilation (claims 1 and 10; Figs. 1 and 2;
Spec. ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0035], [0036], and [0037]).
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added,
reads as follows:
1. A fuse, comprising:
a hollow body comprising a tubular wall surrounding an internal space
and two opposed open end surfaces;
a fusible conductive element extending in the internal space between
the two end faces of the hollow body; and
two contact caps each with a respective base and adjoining side walls,
the bases of the two contact caps partially closing the internal space at the
end faces and the side walls overlapping a respective section of the outer
surface of the wall of the hollow body, wherein two end sections of a
conductor of the fusible conductive element extend out of the internal space
Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

3
through the end faces around the wall of the hollow body so that they are
arranged between a respective side wall of one of the contact caps and a
section of the outer surface of the hollow body, and wherein the end sections
of the conductor of the fusible conductive element are each secured by an
adhesive connection outside the internal space in a gap-shaped space
defined between the outer surface of the hollow body and the side wall of a
respective one of the contact caps so that the surfaces adjoining the internal
space are substantially free of organic materials, and so that an air gap is
left between the outer surface of the wall of the hollow body and at least one
of the side walls of the contact caps.

Examiner’s Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cameron
„330 (US 3,374,330) and Ito (US 5,994,994). Ans. 3-7.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, and 13 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Cameron
„330, Edwards (US 4,680,567), and Cameron „336 (US 3,333,336). Ans. 7-
8.

Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

4
Appellants’ Contentions
1

1. Appellants contend (Br. 6-12) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Cameron „330 and Ito for numerous reasons including:
(a) Cameron „330 and Ito fail to teach or suggest surface adjoining the
internal space are substantially free of organic materials so an air gap is left
between the outer surface of the wall of the hollow body and at least one
side wall of the contact caps, as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6-9);
(b) combining Cameron „330 and Ito violates the operating principles
of both references because Cameron „330 teaches against using an air gap
and Ito teaches using passages for ventilating the hollow tubes, thus it would
not have been obvious to combine the references (Br. 7-8);
(c) Cameron „330 and Ito both teach organic epoxy on the end faces
of the fuse tube body, and are therefore not substantially free of organic
material as recited in claim 1 (Br. 8-9); and
(d) the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 4-9 for the same
reasons argued with respect to claim 1 discussed supra (Br. 6 and 9-10).

1
Aside from asserting claims 6, 7, 13 are included in the grounds of
rejection argued for claims 1 and 10 (which grounds are different because
different references are applied), Appellants Brief fail to present any
arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 13 under § 103(a)
over Cameron „330, Edwards, and Cameron „336 (see Br. 6 and 11).
Therefore, the Appellant has not disputed the Examiner‟s rejection set forth
in the Answer (see Ans. 7-8), and Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 6, 7, and 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

5
2. With regard to claim 3, Appellants further contend, inter alia,
that Ito uses solder instead of high temperature adhesives, and Cameron „330
does not apply fuses to circuit boards (Br. 10-11).
3. With regard to claim 10, Appellants further contend, inter alia,
that it would not have been obvious to use a square shape for a hollow body
of a fuse for use in mounting SMD‟s to circuit boards (Br. 11).
4. Appellants contend (Br. 11-12) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons argued
with respect to claim 10 discussed supra.
Notably, Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief.

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants‟ arguments in the Brief (Br. 6-12), the following
issues are presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14 as being
obvious because Cameron „330 and Ito are (1) not properly combinable,
and/or (2) the combination of Cameron „330 and Ito fails to teach or suggest
the limitation at issue in independent claims 1 and 10 of “surfaces adjoining
the internal space are substantially free of organic materials” to form an air
gap between the hollow body and at least one of the side walls of the contact
caps?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 3 as being obvious because
the combination of Cameron „330 and Ito fails to teach or suggest the
adhesive connection as set forth in claim 3?
Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

6
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10-12 and 14 as being
obvious because the combination of Cameron „330 and Ito fails to teach or
suggest the square shaped hollow bodied fuse as set forth in claim 10?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner‟s rejections in light of Appellants‟
contentions in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellants‟ conclusions.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, as well as the
Advisory Action (see Advisory Action mailed Sept. 2, 2008), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner‟s Answer in response to
Appellants‟ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-7). We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner (Ans. 8-18).
We agree with the Examiner‟s findings with respect to Cameron „330
and Ito, and with the Examiner‟s determination that it would have been
obvious to combine the references based on the rationale set forth by the
Examiner (see Ans. 3-7). Cameron „330 (Figs. 1 and 2) describes a
conductive adhesive 15 located on, and being used to secure, the end caps 13
to the outer surface 18 of the hollow fuse tube 10 (col. 2, ll. 26-29). Ito
teaches a ventilated fuse end cap arrangement similar to Appellants, using
air gaps 22 inside of end caps 19 to ventilate the hollow tube 12 (see Fig. 4).
The combination of Cameron „330 and Ito teaches or suggests a fuse having
end sections secured to a hollow body with adhesive, and with the provision
of an air gap between the hollow body and at least one of the end sections to
Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

7
allow for ventilation, where surfaces adjoining an internal space between
two end faces of the hollow body are substantially free of organic materials
(i.e., adhesive) and an air gap is left between the outer surface of the wall of
the hollow body and at least one of the side walls of the contact caps.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9, we find the Examiner‟s
reasoning at pages 9-12 of the Answer particularly persuasive. We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that Cameron does not specifically teach against
an air gap, but simply states a preference for a seal. The seal is made using
an adhesive such as conductive cement 15, an organic material that is not on
the end faces of the tube but only on the outer surface 18 of the tube 10 (Fig.
1; see Ans. 13-15; Advisory Action at 2).
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12) that combining the
teachings of Cameron „330 and Ito would not change the basic operating
principle of the fuse taught by Cameron.
With respect to claim 3, we agree with the Examiner‟s reasoning
(Ans. 5-6 and 16-17) that it would have been obvious to select an adhesive
with the recited properties. We disagree with Appellants‟ assertion (Br. 10)
that Ito fails to teach or suggest using adhesives, and note that Appellants
admit that Ito uses epoxy on the hollow fuse body (Br. 10, “except for
joining the inner cap to the fuse body with epoxy, Ito prefers joining
methods that do not require adhesive”). In any event, Cameron teaches
using adhesive (conductive cement 15 shown in Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 26-43), and
Cameron, not Ito, was relied upon by the Examiner for this feature (see Ans.
4-5).
Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

8
And, with respect to claims 10-12 and 14, we agree with the
Examiner‟s conclusion (Ans. 5 and 17-18) that it would have been obvious
to employ a square shape with round corners for the hollow fuse body.

Claims 6, 7, and 13
Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Cameron „330, Edwards, and Cameron „336 teaches
or suggests the fuses recited because Appellants do not address the merits of
the inclusion of Edwards and Cameron „336 in the combination (see Br. 6).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to
each ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by
Appellants will be refused consideration).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14
as being obvious, because (a) Cameron „330 and Ito are properly
combinable, and (b) the combination of Cameron „330 and Ito teaches or
suggests the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 10 at issue.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Appellants have not presented any separate arguments with
respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 13 as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cameron „330, Edwards, and Cameron „336. As such,
Appellants have not argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 7,
Appeal 2010-000452
Application 11/924,434

9
and 13, or otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to be in error. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejections of claims 1-14 are affirmed.
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

ELD