Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

15341102 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020)

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.
15/341,102 11/02/2016 Robert J. Chastain 28858-01C 9602
34238 7590 01/22/2020
ARTHUR G. SCHAIER
CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
195 CHURCH STREET
P.O. BOX 1950
NEW HAVEN, CT 06509-1950
EXAMINER
GUSHI, ROSS N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
patents@carmodylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. CHASTAIN and GLEN D. SHAW
____________

Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–34 and 37–48. Claims 35 and 36
are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would
be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations
of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 5. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was
held on January 13, 2020.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PerfectVision
Manufacturing, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

2
The present invention relates generally to female sockets adapted to
be engaged by a coaxial connector. See Spec. 6:14–15.
Claim 31 is illustrative:
31. An apparatus comprising:
a female socket adapted to be engaged by a coaxial
connector wherein the female socket comprises:
a body comprising an end for engaging the coaxial
connector;
a sleeve disposed within the body, wherein the sleeve is
configured for axial movement within the body and outwardly
from the body, and wherein the sleeve is configured to promote
electrical continuity with the coaxial connector by exerting
pressure on an electrically conductive portion of the coaxial
connector, by promoting electrical contact with the coaxial
connector, or by exerting pressure on an electrically conductive
portion of the coaxial connector and promoting electrical
contact with the coaxial connector; and
a tube disposed within the sleeve, wherein the tube is
configured to accept a center conductor from the coaxial
connector.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 31–34, 37, and 40–47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Peng (US 8,172,617 B2, May 8, 2012); and
R2. Claim 38, 39, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peng.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).

Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 102(e) over Peng
Claims 32–34, 37, 40–47
Appellant contends “the claimed invention requires a sleeve that
slides outside the female socket opening to engage the male connector and
establish an electrical continuity path for the outer conductor.” App. Br. 5.
Appellant further contends that “the Examiner resorted to contending that
two distinct elements of Peng, ‘front insulation member 14’ and metal
contact sleeve 16,’ somehow in combination satisfy the ‘sleeve’ requirement
of independent claim 31.” Id. at 7. Specifically, Appellant contends that
“Peng’s ‘metal contact sleeve 16’ – at all times – stays within the socket
body, and thus, does not ‘axially move outwardly from the body.’ In
addition, Peng’s ‘front insulation member 14’ is an ‘insulation member’ and
is not electrically conductive.” Id. at 7.
In response, the Examiner finds that “[c]laim 31 does not require that
the sleeve be [an] unitarily constructed component. Therefore, Peng[’s]
parts 14 and 16 can be considered as meeting the limitation of ‘a sleeve
disposed within the body.’” Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds that
“[c]laim 31 does not require that the sleeve be conductive.” Id. (emphasis
omitted). We agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
First, we note, as a matter of claim construction, that neither the claim
nor Appellant’s Specification requires the claimed “sleeve” to be a unitary
component nor a conductive member, as argued by Appellant. For instance,
Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

4
claim 31 merely recites “a sleeve disposed within the body, wherein the
sleeve is configured for axial movement within the body . . . to promote
electrical continuity with the coaxial connector.” Claim 31. Appellant’s
Specification merely discloses that “The preferably metallic traveling sleeve
62 comprises an elongated shank 69 forming internal passageway 70
(Fig. 5). In assembly the traveling sleeve 62 is coaxially and slidably
disposed within body passageway 50 or 52 for limited axial displacements.”
Spec. 11:12–14.
In other words, Appellant’s Specification describes a slidable “sleeve”
that is preferably metallic, but not necessarily, and claim 31 merely recites
that the sleeve “promote” electrical continuity, not necessarily directly
providing the electrical continuity, i.e., by being conductive. Although we
agree with Appellant that “‘preferably metallic’ does not necessarily equate
to potentially non-conductive” (Reply Br. 5), we note that such language
does equate to a non-limiting aspect of the sleeve which gives the Examiner
broad discretion to interpret such a component. As such, we find the
aforementioned limitation sufficiently reads on the Examiner’s findings in
Peng.
For example, Peng discloses “a front insulation member 14, . . . a
metal contact sleeve 16 . . . The front insulation member 14 is movably
mounted in the front opening 111 of the metal casing 11 and sleeved onto
the metal center pin 13. Insertion of the plug member 2 into the F-type
socket member 1 causes the front insulation member 14 to be moved
axially.” Peng, 2:44–67. Peng further discloses that “[t]he metal contact
sleeve 16 is electrically conductively sleeved onto the metal center pin 13
and movable with the front insulation member 14.” Peng, 3:3–5. In other
Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

5
words, Peng’s combined metal contact sleeve 16 and insulation member 14
provides the claimed slidable sleeve that promote electrical continuity with a
coaxial connector. As written, claim 31 alternatively requires different ways
of promoting electrical continuity and as noted supra, Peng satisfies at least
one such broad alternative, i.e., by promoting electrical contact with the
coaxial connector.
Although Appellant contends that “the [S]pecification consistently
teaches that the traveling sleeves of the invention promote electrical
conductivity because they ‘reach out’ to incoming F-connectors to insure
electrical contact” (Reply Br. 4–5), we note that the claims as written do not
necessarily require such an arrangement. While we interpret claims broadly
but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import
limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations
omitted). Here, claim 31 is written in an alternative fashion, allowing the
Examiner to choose which portion to interpret, i.e., the broadest limitation
being the claimed wherein the sleeve is configured to promote electrical
continuity with the coaxial connector . . . by promoting electrical contact
with the coaxial connector. Claim 31. As such, as written, claim 31 does
not necessarily require promoting electrical conductivity by reaching out
(i.e., exerting pressure) to incoming F-connectors, as predominantly argued
by Appellant. Furthermore, we find that “promoting electrical conductivity”
is an inherent feature of any coaxial cable connector and the intended
purpose thereof.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31.
Appellant’s argument regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

6
claims 32–34, 37, and 40–47 rely on the same arguments as for claim 31.
See Appeal. Br. 6–9. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 32–34, 37, and 40–47.
Rejection under § 103(a) over Peng
Claims 38 and 39
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 31 above (see Appeal. Br. 9), claims 38
and 39 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claim 48
Appellant contends “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on inherency was
improper” (Appeal Br. 9) because “the Examiner failed to provide any ‘basis
in fact and/or technical reasoning’ as to why the claimed functionality would
necessarily result from the Peng device.” Id. at 10.
When relying upon a theory of inherency, the Examiner must provide
a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
Examiner’s determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic
necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy,
17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463–64 (BPAI 1990). Here, the Examiner finds that
“[a]s long as the threads of the mating connectors are at least partially
engaged, and the Peng sleeve 14 is applying pressure to the abutting face of
the mating connector, electrical continuity between the mating threads will
be enhanced via the pressure of the sleeve 14 on the face of the mating
connector.” Ans. 3. Appellant fails to rebut this specific technical
reasoning.
Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

7
Instead, Appellant merely points out that “Peng uses an impedance
element for electrical continuity while the claimed invention uses the
traveling sleeves.” Reply Br. 6. Even if Peng uses an impedance element
for electrical continuity when the plug member is disconnected, as proffered
by Appellant, Appellant fails to rebut the Examiner’s technical reasoning
outlined supra for how Peng inherently maintains electrical connection with
the coaxial connector. We note that claim 48 does not require that one
“maintain electrical connection” by a specific method, but instead broadly
recite that “the sleeve and the spring are configured to maintain electrical
connection,” arguably by any particular method. See claim 48. Appellant’s
argument fails to persuasively show error in the Examiner’s aforementioned
technical reasoning.
Therefore, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned contention
that the Examiner failed to provide any basis in fact and/or technical
reasoning, given the unrebutted reasons highlighted supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
31–34, 37, 40–47 § 102(e) Peng 31–34, 37, 40–47
38, 39, 48 § 103(a) Peng 38, 39, 48
Overall Outcome 31–34, 37–
48

Appeal 2018-004846
Application 15/341,102

8
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