EATON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 30, 2020

2019004656 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 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. 15/083,478 03/29/2016 LAURA TERESA PORTUONDO BAUTISTA 15-MCB-1465 3819 101730 7590 07/30/2020 ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC EATON CORPORATION 600 GRANT STREET 44TH FLOOR PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 EXAMINER BARNES, MALCOLM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2020 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): ipmail@eckertseamans.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LAURA TERESA PORTUONDO BAUTISTA and GLENNYS JOHANNY JESUS REYES Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 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 Eaton Corporation (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to a current transformer apparatus that is electrically connectable with and mountable to a circuit board such as a printed circuit board (Spec. 1:7–8; Claim 1). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: A current transformer apparatus that is structured to be electrically connected with and to be mounted to a circuit board having a plurality of pads that are electrically conductive, the current transformer apparatus comprising: a coil apparatus comprising a wire that is wound into a coil; a support, the coil apparatus being situated on the support; a connection apparatus that comprises a plurality of electrical contacts and a number of reaction structures situated on the support, the plurality of electrical contacts comprising a pair of electrical contacts, an electrical contact of the pair of electrical contacts having an electrical connection with the wire, another electrical contact of the pair of electrical contacts having another electrical connection with the wire, at least one of at least a first reaction structure of the number of reaction structures and the plurality of electrical contacts being biased generally toward the other of the at least first reaction structure and the plurality of electrical contacts to electrically connect the plurality of electrical contacts with the plurality of pads and to compressively engage the circuit board and the plurality of pads between the plurality of electrical contacts and the at least first reaction structure to thereby mount the current transformer apparatus to the circuit board. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scott (US 4,652,975, issued March 24, 1987) in view of De Vuyst (US 3,486,163, issued December 23, 1969). 2. Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scott in view of De Vuyst and Coller (US 4,558,912, issued Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 3 December 17, 1985). 3. Claims 8–10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scott in view of De Vuyst, Coller, and Chin (US 6,753,749 B1, issued June 22, 2004). 4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Scott, De Vuyst, Coller, Chin, and Imamura2 (US 4,855,866, issued August 8, 1989). Appellant argues claim 1 only with regard to rejections (1) to (4) (Appeal Br. 3–8). Therefore, any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Scott in view of De Vuyst are located on pages 3–4 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that Scott’s biasing of the spring contacts 18, 19 against the metal pins 30, 33 to electrically connect the spring contacts with the pins does not mount the current transformer apparatus to the circuit board (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends that Scott’s snapping engagement of notched posts 22, 23 into slots 24, 25 on the insulated body 35 refers to mechanical elements engaging other mechanical elements to connect the 2 The Final Action incorrectly lists the Imamura patent number as US 5,872,489 (Final Act. 9). The correct patent number is listed in our statement of the rejection. The Examiner included the correct Imamura patent number in the Notice of References Cited (Form 892) dated November 30, 2017. We find the Examiner’s mistake in transcribing the patent number to be harmless error. Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 4 structures together, and not an electrical connection (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues that De Vuyst does not disclose mounting of a current transformer apparatus to a circuit board (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends that De Vuyst is directed to a scenario where the board 7 and contact element 2 are both already mounted to another structure, and where misalignment can be accommodated by the living hinge 8 (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues that based on this scenario De Vuyst teaches the opposite of mounting a current transformer to the circuit board (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 requires, inter alia, electrical contacts and reaction structures that are: biased generally toward the other of the at least first reaction structure and the plurality of electrical contacts . . . to compressively engage the circuit board and the plurality of pads between the plurality of electrical contacts and the at least first reaction structure to thereby mount the current transformer apparatus to the circuit board. Thus, claim 1 requires that the reaction structures and the electrical contacts are biased toward one another to compressively engage the circuit board and the pads. With this claim construction in mind, we review the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds that Scott teaches spring contacts 18, 19 that electrically connect with pins 30, 33 on the printed wiring board 35 and notched posts 22, 23 which “snappingly” engage the slots 24, 25 on printed wiring board 35 (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4). The Examiner finds that Scott’s notched posts 22, 23 correspond to the reaction members and spring contacts 18, 19 correspond to the electrical contacts (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that Scott mounts the transformer winding 13 on the printed wiring board 35 Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 5 using the notched posts 22, 23 and spring contacts 18, 19, which meets the claim requirement that mounts a current transformer apparatus on the circuit board (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that Scott does not teach using electrically conductive pads which are biased by the first reaction structure and the plurality of electrical contacts electrically connect with the plurality of pads and compressively engage the circuit board and the plurality of pads (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that De Vuyst teaches a circuit board having a plurality of electrically conductive pads which are biased between a first reaction structure 4 and plurality of electrical contact pads (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Scott to include the U-shaped connector and circuit board of De Vuyst in order to provide a pair of opposed contact surfaces 6 to be urged into engagement with opposite sides of a printed circuit board 7 inserted therebetween as taught by De Vuyst (Final Act. 5). We agree with the Examiner that Scott’s notched posts 22, 23 and spring contacts 18, 19 which engage the printed wiring board 35 and the posts 30, 31 thereon meet the claim requirement of at least a first reaction structure biased toward an electrical contact and compressively engage the circuit board. Scott’s spring contacts provide a force directed toward the notched posts and together they connect to the printed wiring board 35 by snapping engagement of the notched post into the slots 28 and 31 (Figure 1 col. 2, ll. 50–55, 66–68, col. 3, ll. 1–2). Scott uses pins 30, 33, and not the claimed plurality of pads, for electrical connection (Scott, col. 2, ll. 66–68, col. 3, ll. 1–10). The Examiner’s rejection is based on modifying Scott’s attachment mechanism to use De Vuyst’s edge attachment mechanism that both mechanically holds and electrically connects the circuit board 7 and Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 6 pads thereon to post 3 via connector housing 1 (Final Act. 4–5). The Examiner determines that the combined teachings would have suggested a transformer mounted on a circuit board via an edge attachment of the transfer to pads on the edge of the circuit board (Ans. 4). We agree. Appellant’s arguments that Scott’s notched posts provide a mechanical connection to the circuit board, not an electrical connection, fails to appreciate that claims only require that the electrical contacts, not the first reaction structure, form an electrical connection. According to claim 1, the first reaction structure and electrical contacts are biased toward one another and the electrical contacts electrically connect the electrical contacts with the pads. The first reaction structure biases the electrical contact against the pad according to the claims, which is the same type of arrangement taught by Scott and De Vuyst, where the opposing contact surfaces 6 of De Vuyst are directed toward one another (Scott, Figure 1, col. 2, ll. 50–55, 66–68, col. 3, ll. 1–2; De Vuyst, col. 2, ll. 33–36). Moreover, the Specification includes embodiments where the first reaction structure and the electrical contact are not formed as a U-shaped member (i.e., where the first reaction structure and electrical contacts are connected) (See Spec. 6:14–20). In those embodiments, the base wall 48 and other structures in the platform 40 would serve as the reaction structure situated to oppose the bias by the aforementioned alternative electrical contacts (Spec. 6:17–20). Claim 1 as drafted does not require a U-shaped configuration where the first reaction structure is connected to the electrical contact. Appellant’s arguments that De Vuyst is directed to a scenario where the board 7 and contact element 2 are both already mounted to another Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 7 structure, and where misalignment can be accommodated by the living hinge 8, attacks the rejection in a piecemeal fashion (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner finds that Scott teaches attaching a transformer to a circuit board but does not teach the use of pads along the edge of the circuit board (Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner relies on De Vuyst to teach the use of pads on a circuit board and a clamping structure to attach the circuit board mechanically and electrically to another structure (Final Act. 4). In other words, the Examiner determines that the combined teachings would have suggested modifying Scott’s device to use De Vuyst’s attachment mechanism (Final Act. 4). Appellant’s arguments do not show reversible error with regard to this rejection. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that De Vuyst’s structure is used where a circuit board is attached to another member already attached to another device using contact element 2, claim 1 does not exclude the current transformer from being attached to a larger device to which the circuit board is attached or detached therefrom. Appellant’s argued distinction is not reflected in the claim language. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1– 4 and 13 over Scott in view of De Vuyst. The § 103 rejections of claims 5– 7, and 8–12 are affirmed for the same reasons as discussed with regard to claim 1. Appeal 2019-004656 Application 15/083,478 8 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 13 103 Scott, De Vuyst 1–4, 13 5–7 103 Scott, De Vuyst, Coller 5–7 8–10, 12 103 Scott, De Vuyst, Coller, Chin 8–10, 12 11 103 Scott, De Vuyst, Coller, Chin, Imamura 11 Overall Outcome 1–13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED