Ex Parte Sawada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

14435771 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/435,771 04/15/2015
65181 7590 07/30/2018
METROLEXIS LAW GROUP, PLLC
900 17th Street, NW.
Suite 320
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tsutomu Sawada
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MIY.001.0699.PC 9409
EXAMINER
GILMAN, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
info@metrolexis.com
team-o@metrolexis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TSUTOMU SAW ADA and NORIHISA YAMADA
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-13.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, "Y AZAKI CORPORATION," which,
according to the Brief, is the real party in interest ( Appeal Brief filed
February 13, 2017 (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") 3).
2 Appeal Br. 12-21; Reply Brief filed July 3, 2017 (hereinafter "Reply Br.")
4--15; Final Office Action entered September 8, 2016 (hereinafter "Final
Act.") 2---6; Examiner's Answer entered May 16, 2017 (hereinafter "Ans.")
2-12.
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a charging connector for
charging a battery mounted on a vehicle such as an electric vehicle or a
hybrid electric vehicle (Specification filed April 15, 2015 (hereinafter
"Spec.") ,r 1 ). Figure 3, which is reproduced below from the Drawings filed
April 15, 2015, is illustrative:
315
FIG. 3
Figure 3 above is described as an exploded perspective view of a charging
connector 1 according to one embodiment of the invention, wherein the
charging connector 1 includes, inter alia, an exterior case 2 having two case
split bodies 2A and 2B, a connector body 20 housed inside the exterior case
2, a micro switch 31 turned on or off by a lock arm 30, and a seal member
2
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
40 with a connector body seal portion 42 that is interposed between the
exterior case 2 and the connector body 20 (id. ,r,r 14, 16, 23). According to
the Inventors, rubber plugs are used in the prior art as depicted in the
admitted prior art (Drawing filed February 4, 2016, labeled "FIG. 1 Prior
Art")) to prevent water from reaching a terminal when water intrudes into
the inside of the exterior case but such rubber plugs are expensive (id. ,r,r 8,
10). Therefore, the Inventors state that "[i]t is an object of the present
invention to provide a charging connector having the structure which
waterproofs terminals at a low cost" (id. ,r 11 ).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 22), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
1. A charging connector comprising:
an exterior case having two case split bodies assembled to
each other with abutting surfaces of the two case split bodies
being in contact with each other, the two case split bodies as
assembled having a connector fitting portion projecting hole and
an electric wire pullout hole;
a connector body housed inside the exterior case and
having a connector fitting portion exposed outside the exterior
case through the connector fitting portion projecting hole; and
a seal member formed of an integral body including a case
split surface seal portion arranged along whole circumferences
of the abutting surfaces surrounding a portion of the connector
body housed inside the exterior case and interposed between the
abutting surfaces of the two case split bodies, a connector body
seal portion arranged along a whole circumference of the
connector fitting portion projecting hole and interposed
between the exterior case and the connector body, and an
electric wire seal portion arranged along a whole circumference
of the electric wire pullout hole and interposed between the
exterior case and an electric wire pulled out from the connector
body and led outside the exterior case through the electric wire
pullout hole.
3
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains a rejection under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) entered against claims 1-13 as unpatentable over the
admitted prior art (Fig. 1 in the current application; Spec. ,r,r 2-8; hereinafter
"AP A") or Boeck et al. 3 (hereinafter "Boeck") in view of Caims4 (Ans. 2-
12; Final Act. 2-7). 5
III. DISCUSSION
Except for a separate argument in support of claim 9, the Appellant
argues the rejected claims together (Appeal Br. 13-21). Therefore, we
confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant
to 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv), and claim 9. As provided by this rule, claims
2-8 and 10-13 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that either the APA (Fig. 1 (Prior Art)) or Boeck
describes a charging connector including every limitation recited in claim 1,
except that neither discloses "a seal member formed of an integral body
including a case split surface seal portion arranged along whole
circumferences of the abutting surfaces surrounding a portion of the
connector body housed inside the exterior case and interposed between the
abutting surfaces of the two case split bodies" as recited in the claim (Ans.
3 US 2014/0106586 Al, published April 17, 2014.
4 US 7,388,152 B2, issued June 17, 2008.
5 In both the Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer (Final Act. 2;
Ans. 2), the statement of the rejection does not include claims 2-13 as
rejected. The Appellant, however, was not prejudiced by this error because
the reasoning in support of the rejection discusses claims 2-13 (Final Act. 4--
6; Ans. 3---6), and the Appellant understood these claims to be rejected
(Appeal Br. 12).
4
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
2-3). Relying on Cairns, however, the Examiner concludes that "it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art ... to utilize [a]
sealing structure, as taught by Cairns, to improve sealing capacity of the
charging connector" and, thus, arrive at a charging connector encompassed
by claim 1 (id. at 3).
The Appellant contends that neither the AP A nor Boeck discloses the
"connector body seal portion" limitations highlighted in reproduced claim 1
above and that, because "Cairns is directed only to sealing body halves and
cable ends," the rejection fails (Appeal Br. 14--16). The Appellant further
argues: "Considering that the AP A discloses that a degree of water intrusion
is accepted, the AP A teaches against the recited connector body seal portion
by which water intrusion is prevented, which is further evidence of non-
obviousness" (id. at 14). With respect to claim 9, which depends from claim
1 and recites that "the seal member comprises a rubber material" (id. at 24),
the Appellant argues that although Cairns discloses a "rubber-like" material
for an 0-ring, it does not disclose a rubber material used in a seal member
(id. at 20-21).
We have fully considered the Appellant's arguments but find that they
fail to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection as to claims 1
and 9. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Figure 1 (Prior Art) is reproduced from the Drawing filed February 4,
2016 as follows:
5
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
no
FIG. 1
Prior Art
Figure 1 (Prior Art) above is described as depicting a prior art charging
connector 100 including, inter alia, an exterior case formed from two case
split bodies 110A and 110B, a connector body 120 arranged in the inside of
the exterior case 110, and a lock arm 130 (Spec. ,r 2). As the Appellant
argues (Appeal Br. 14), the prior art connector does not include "a connector
body seal portion arranged along a whole circumference of the connector
fitting portion projecting hole and interposed between the exterior case and
the connector body" as specified in claim 1. Instead, according to the
Inventors, rubber plugs (not shown in Figure 1) are mounted on an electric
wiring portion of the connector housing 121 to prevent water from intruding
into the interior of the connector housing 121 (Spec. ,r 6).
6
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
Boeck describes a charging plug 1 having a handle 7 in which a
sealing wall 19 is constructed in such a manner that it surrounds a
conduction chamber 18 at least partially in a sealing manner so that the
conduction chamber is enclosed against the introduction of moisture (Boeck
Figs. 1-2; ,r 42). Like the APA, however, Boeck does not describe "a
connector body seal portion" as specified in claim 1.
In response to the Appellant's argument that neither the AP A or
Boeck describes the disputed "connector body seal portion" limitations, the
Examiner states that in the AP A (Fig. 1 ), "the circumferential grommet on
the connector body (121A) inserted into the circumferential groove in the
outer case llO[A] and llO[B]) form 'the connector body seal portion"'
(Ans. 6; bolding added). Alternatively, the Examiner explains, inter alia,
that "[ w ]hen applied to the primary references (AP A or Boeck et al), the
Cairns ... seal elements would be configured according to features of the
primary references" (id. at 10).
We do not subscribe to the Examiner's view that AP A's
circumferential groove constitutes a "connector body seal portion" as
specified in claim 1 because claim 1 requires this claim element to be
"interposed between the exterior case and the connector body." This error,
however, was harmless because we agree with the Examiner's latter
position. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood
from Cairns' s disclosure that an appropriately configured "rubber-like,
substantially incompressible, elastomeric material" ( emphases added) would
be suitable in creating an effective seal between two mechanical parts
(Cairns col. 5, 11. 3-20; col. 10, 11. 39-51; Figs. 3-5, 13-17). Although APA
uses a different type of seal in the form of rubber plugs, a person having
7
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to substitute AP A's
rubber plugs with a suitably configured seal as demonstrated in Cairns based
on the expectation that these sealing mechanisms would be interchangeable
as effective seals. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)
("[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is
altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.").
We find no merit in the Appellant's argument that AP A's use of
rubber plugs constitutes a teaching away from the use of a "connector body
seal portion" as specified in claim 1. "The prior art's mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed" by the Inventors. In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Lastly, regarding claim 9, Cairns plainly discloses "rubber-like" or
"elastomeric" (i.e., rubbery) materials (Cairns col. 5, 11. 10-13). An
elastomeric material, which is "rubber-like," is----or at the very least
encompasses-a rubber. Therefore, the Appellant's argument fails.
For these reasons, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection as maintained against claims 1 and 9.
IV. SUMMARY
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) entered against
claims 1-13 as unpatentable over the AP A or Boeck in view of Cairns is
sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-13 is
affirmed.
8
Appeal2017-009598
Application 14/435,771
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9