Ex parte Patel et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 1998

08491458 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 16, 1995. According to1
appellants, the application is a continuation-in-part of
Application 08/241,383, filed, May 11, 1994, now U. S. Patent No.
5,453,028, issued September 26, 1995.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ARVIND PATEL, WILLIAM R. LENZ,
KEN GRAMBLEY, JACK J. SCHAFER, DANIEL M. PRESCOTT,
GLEN ELLYN and CHARLES T. WALSH
________________
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,4581
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before CALVERT, STAAB and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAAB, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 4, 7, 9, 15 and 16, all the claims currently pending in
the application.
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-2-
Appellants’ invention pertains to an electrical connector
for removably connecting a conductor of a mating contact member
to a printed circuit member. Independent claims 15 and 16,
copies of which appear in the appendix to appellants’ brief, are
exemplary of the appealed subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Lytle 5,403,209 Apr. 4, 1995
Frantz 5,445,528 Aug. 29, 1995
(filed May 31, 1994)
Claims 4, 7, 9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Frantz in view of Lytle.
Frantz pertains to a connector 20 for electrically
connecting the conductor 24 of a wire 22 to circuitry on a
circuit board 14. The connector includes a dielectric housing 32
having cavities 60 receiving a contact terminal 34. The
conductors 24 of the wires are terminated to the contact terminal
34 by pushing the wires through openings and into locking
engagement with beam portions 44 of the contact terminal to trap
the wires in the connector and thereby prevent removal of the
wires in the direction A. This is shown in Figure 12. To
release the wires, a tool 94 is pushed through a second opening
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-3-
78 in the housing to push a beam portion out of engagement with a
wire so that the wire may be withdrawn. See Figure 12. The
configuration of the contact terminal is shown in Figures 10, 11
and 14.
Lytle discloses an electrical connector comprising a
dielectric housing 24 having uniform straight, cross section T-
shaped contact receiving slots 16, and a plurality of spring
contacts 14 received in the slots. Each contact includes a
bottom section 26 adapted to make electrical connection with a
printed circuit board, a middle section 28 having retention arms
32a, 32b for retaining the contact in the housing, and a top
section 30. The top section comprises a bight portion 38 for
engaging a male contact 52, shown in phantom lines in Figures 2
and 3. In addition, the top section comprises preload tabs 42
received behind shoulders founded between the head section 18 and
the base section 20 of a receiving slot to preload the bight
portion and thereby enhance contact pressure between the contact
14 and its male contact counterpart 52.
Independent claim 15 calls for, among other things, a
terminal including a base, a spring contact arm having an
outwardly bowed contact portion, and “a free end portion being
bent so that the free end portion is located generally between
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-4-
the bowed portion of the spring contact arm and the terminal
base.” Independent claim 16 contains similar language. The
examiner concedes that the contact terminal 34 of Frantz does not
meet this claim limitation. Nevertheless, the examiner has taken
the position that it would have been obvious “to provide . . .
preloading terminal free end portion[s] in Frantz, to provide
increased retention force as taught by Lytle” (answer, page 3).
The “Response to Argument” section of the answer indicates that
the examiner’s proposed modification of the terminals of Frantz’s
includes not only incorporation of preload tabs therein, but also
a further modification of terminals 34 of Frantz so that
protruding contact portions similar to Lytle’s bight portions 38
are substituted for the trap-like beam portions 44 of Frantz. In
this regard, see pages 4-5 of the answer, wherein the examiner
states:
It should be noted that both Frantz and Lytle accept
mating terminals in a longitudinal insertion direction
forming a resilient grip on the terminal. Elements
generally at 40, 42, 16 of Lytle are clearly analogous
to those of France [sic, Frantz] (i.e. 44, 72), with
Lytle additionally suggesting to one of average skill
that a preloaded terminal end (Fig. 4 of Lytle) with a
protruding contacting portion may clearly be a
substitute for a pinching or trapping resilient
terminal of the type shown at 44, 72 of Frantz.
[Emphasis added.]
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-5-
We appreciate that the contact terminal 34 of Frantz,
modified to incorporate both preload tabs and a protruding
contact portion might very well result in a contact arm having a
free end portion located generally between a bowed portion of the
spring contact arm and a terminal base portion, as now claimed.
We agree with appellants, however, that it would not have been
obvious to substitute a protruding contacting portion like that
disclosed in Lytle at bight portion 38 for the trap-like beam
portion 44 of Frantz. As pointed out by appellants on pages 14-
15 of the brief, “Frantz teaches using a wire trap terminal. By
bending the trapping free end of the Frantz terminal, as in the
claimed invention, the Frantz terminal would no longer be able to
‘trap’ the wire.” We agree. In view of the fact that the
examiner’s proposed modification would render the apparatus of
Frantz unsuitable for its intended purpose of locking the
conductor in place (column 2, lines 6-12; column 4, lines 37-42),
it cannot be said that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Ex parte Rosenfeld, 130 USPQ 113, 115
(Bd. App. 1961). It follows that we cannot sustain the standing
rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Frantz in view of Lytle.
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-6-
In addition, independent claim 16 calls for the spring
contact arm to have a portion projecting through the side opening
in the housing “for engagement by a conductor on an appropriate
mating contact member outside the housing” (emphasis added). The
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, where
the combining teachings of Frantz and Lytle disclose, suggest or
infer such an arrangement. This constitutes an additional reason
necessitating reversal of the standing rejection of claim 16.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-3682
Application 08/491,458
-7-
Stephen Z. Weiss
Patent Counsel
Molex Incorporated
2222 Wellington Court
Lisle, IL 60532