10589058 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2012)

Ex Parte Puettner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 20, 2012

10589058 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 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. 10/589,058 08/11/2006 Achim Puettner 10191/4383 5816 26646 7590 06/20/2012 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER IMAS, VLADIMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2012 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 ACHIM PUETTNER, HARTMUT BUSCHLE, MICHAEL SCHOENFELD, PETER REHBEIN, and ANDREAS SIMMEL ____________ Appeal 2010-010792 Application 10/589,058 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010792 Application 10/589,058 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a connector 12, contact elements 6, and clamping elements 4 which are situated on both sides of contact elements 6 (see Fig. 1). Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 10. A removable electrical plug-in connection comprising: a connector; and a mating connector, the mating connector including a first contact element (3) having at least one contact area which is connectable at least in part to the connector, wherein the connector (12) includes at least one clamping element (4) which grips at least in part around a second contact element (6) in its contact position, and this clamping element (4) presses at least a part of the second contact element (6) against the contact area (7) for establishing the electrical plug-in connection, the clamping element configured to fix the at least a part of the second contact element to the contact area. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Evans (US Patent No. 5,971,806, filed November 26, 1997, issued October 26, 1999). Appeal 2010-010792 Application 10/589,058 3 ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Evans teaches a clamping element configured to fix at least a part of a second contact element to a contact area as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 29. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Evans does not teach a clamping element configured to fix at least a part of the second contact element to a contact area as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 29 (App. Br. 3-4). Appellants specifically argue that Evans does not teach or suggest that any portion of the flexible circuits 23 and 33 is fixed with respect to any portion of the PCB by the flexible spring bias (App. Br. 4). Appellants explain that Evans teaches that “[s]ufficient floating movement of the springs and the flexible circuits is desired to allow the desired alignment between the contact areas 25, 35 and the pads 50 of the PCB” (col. 4, ll. 64 to 67). Accordingly, Appellants conclude that Evans does not disclose, or even suggest, a clamping element that is configured to fix at least a part of a second contact element to a contact area, as recited in claims 10 and 29 (App. Br. 4). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. Evans teaches that circuit areas 25 and 35 are positioned to connect with electrically conductive pads 51 on a substrate 50 of a printed circuit board (PCB) when the connector 10 is attached to an edge connector portion of the PCB (col. 4, ll. 23-26). The connector includes clamping spring elements 20 and 30 which press the conductive pads 51 of substrate 50 against the contact areas 25 and 35 for establishing the electrical plug in connection (see Fig. 1, and col. 4, l. Appeal 2010-010792 Application 10/589,058 4 18-col. 5, l. 3). Evans further teaches that the spring means 20 and 30 are formed to have a preloaded spring rate designed to provide the desired normal force at the respective contact surface for fully engaging the PCB in the connector (col. 4, l. 67-col. 5, l. 4). Accordingly, contrary to Appellants’ assertions, Evans teaches a clamping element 20, 30 that is configured to fix at least a part of a second contact element (conductive pads 51 of substrate 50) to a contact area 25, 35 due to the preloaded spring rate designed to provide the desired normal force at the respective contact surface. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 29 and also the rejections of claims 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28 which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Evans teaches a clamping element configured to fix at least a part of a second contact element to a contact area as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 29. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-29 is 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)(2010). AFFIRMED tkl