Ex Parte Chrabascz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13349112 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017)

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.
13/349,112 01/12/2012 Eric Chrabascz 67010-557 2909
PUS 1;PA-0018856
26096 7590 05/24/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
CHUNG TRANS, XUONG MY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC CHRABASCZ and CRAIG M. BEERS
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed Jan. 12, 2012, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated Jan. 2, 2015, Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Appeal Br.) filed May 29, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated Oct.
6, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed Dec. 4, 2015.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hamilton Sundstrand
Corporation, which is ultimately owned by United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a ram air fan terminal stud with an anti-
rotational feature, the stud having a threaded portion extending from a head.
Spec. 1 and 4. A ram air fan terminal block has a housing and a base with
a plurality of slot walls providing a slot for receiving the head of the stud
with the threaded portion extending through an aperture in the base. Spec. 1
5.3 The head has a sidewall that interfaces directly with one of the slotwalls,
wherein a ratio of the length to the height of the sidewall is from 2.18 to
2.35. Id.
Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Limitations at
issue are italicized.
1. A terminal stud of a ram air fan connection assembly,
comprising:
a terminal stud having a threaded portion extending from
a head that is held within a slot of a base, the head having a
sidewall interfacing directly with a wall of the base, the sidewall
having a length and a height, wherein a ratio of the length to the
height is from 2.18 to 2.35.
7. A ram air fan terminal block, comprising:
a housing;
a base having a plurality of slot walls that provide a slot;
and
a plurality of terminal studs each having a threaded portion
extending from a head, the head received within the slot and the
threaded portion extending through an aperture in the base,
3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
wherein the head has a sidewall that interfaces directly with one
of the plurality ofslot walls, and a ratio of a length of the sidewall
to a height of the sidewall is from 2.18 to 2.35.
References and Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1, 2, and 19 as unpatentable over Peterson4 in view of
ASME;5
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 19 as unpatentable over Delcourt6 in view
of ASME;
3. Claims 1, 4, and 19 as unpatentable over Mangapora7 in view of
ASME;
4. Claims 7, 11, 14—18, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over AAPA8 in
view of Yohn9 and ASME; and
5. Claims 8—10, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over AAPA in view of
Yohn and ASME, and further in view of Mangapora.
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not contest the prior art status of the applied references.
For purposes of this appeal, to the extent that the claims on appeal are
4 Peterson et al., US 6,864,015 B2, issued Mar. 8, 2005 (“Peterson”).
5 ASME B 18.2.1, “Square, Hex, Heavy Hex, and Askew Head Bolts and
Hex, Heavy Hex, Hex Flange, Lobed Head, and Lag Screws (Inch Series)”,
An American National Standard, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2012, pp. 4—6 (“ASME”).
6 Delcourt et al., US 2002/0115317 Al, published Aug. 22, 2002
(“Delcourt”).
7 Mangapora, US 6,607,339 Bl, issued Aug. 19, 2003 (“Mangapora”).
8 Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, Spec. 13 (“AAPA”).
9 Yohn et al., US 7,527,523 B2, issued May 5, 2009 (“Yohn”).
3
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
separately argued, we will address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action, the Appeal Brief, the Answer,
and the Reply Brief (filed May 2, 2013). Findings of fact throughout this
Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Rejection 1: §103 over Peterson and ASME
Claim 1
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final
Office Action, page 2—3. Appellants argue that Peterson teaches a stud 102
whose head 110 is separate and distinct from a boss member 120. Appeal
Br. 3. As such, Appellants urge that Peterson does not teach or suggest the
claimed head because the boss member is not a head. Id. Appellants further
argue that the rejection fails to clearly articulate the reasons why claim 1
would have been obvious. Id. Appellants urge that because ASME teaches
dimensions of square head bolts, not hexagonal boss members, any ASME
ratio would not be applicable to Petersons’ hex boss member. Id. at 4.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s reliance on In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454 (CCPA 1955), is misplaced because Aller relates to temperatures and
concentrations, not ratios of dimension, and does not apply when the
parameter is shown to be critical. Id. Here, Appellants contend, “[t]he
terminal stud having a ratio within the claimed range “effectively limits
rotation while minimizing its weight contribution to the overall design.’”
Id., citing Spec. 134. Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s
explanation of the claimed ratio range fails to provide objective evidence
4
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
disclosing or suggesting the claimed relationship because ASME does not
recognize any ratio of head sidewall length to height. Id. at 4—5.
Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection. We begin by construing claim 1. See
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination
be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the
claimed invention.”). This claim is directed to a terminal stud. However,
claim 1 further recites that the terminal stud has a head that “is held within a
slot of a base.” In addition, claim 1 recites that the head has “a sidewall
interfacing directly with a wall of the base.” In each instance, the claim
positively recites a structural relationship actively exists between the head of
the stud and the base. Thus, though the preamble sets forth that the claim is
directed to the terminal stud, the base is nonetheless part of the required
structure of this claim, i.e., claim 1 is directed to an assembly between the
terminal stud and the base.
Turning to the applied prior art, with this claim construction in mind,
we note that ASME teaches both hex and square head bolts. There is no
dispute that each ASME bolt clearly includes a threaded portion extending
from a head. Further, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), for the nominal
size or basic product diameter square head bolt of 1.5, the width of the head
is 2.25 and the height is 1. ASME, Square Head Bolts, Table labeled
“Dimensions of Square Head Bolts,” last row. The ratio of length to height
for this square head bolt is 2.25 which is within the range recited in claim 1.
Thus, the ASME square head bolt of 1.5 inch nominal size meets the
5
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
structural limitations of the terminal stud of claim 1. Appellants do not
dispute these findings.
Further, we note Peterson teaches that boss member 120 may be
formed integrally with the stud which would make it integral with head 110.
As the Examiner finds, Appellants’ claim 1 does not specify any particular
structure for the head of the stud other than that the threaded portion extends
therefrom. Peterson, Figure 3, clearly shows the threaded portion 108
extending from the boss member 120. Therefore, we are not persuaded that
Peterson’s boss member 120 is not a head. Further, regardless of the merits
of Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Aller,there
is no dispute that ASME teaches a ratio within the claimed range for a
square head bolt. Thus, one would have found it obvious to have selected
such a ratio in Peterson as a known standard dimension for bolts.
We are also not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would not have
looked to ASME for bolt dimensions because ASME teaches square head
bolts, whereas Peterson teaches a hex head bolt. While Peterson prefers a
hex head bolt, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily expected
that a square head bolt would have provided the same anti-rotation feature as
Peterson’s hex head bolt. As such, the ASME square head bolt and
Peterson’s hex head bolt are functional equivalents, such that substitution of
10 We note that there is nothing in A Her that limits its application merely to
temperature or concentration. In addition, merely stating that a particular
ratio achieves a good balance between weight and function does not alone
establish that the ratio is critical.
6
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
one for the other is well within the ordinary skill in the art. Appellants do
not provide any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning otherwise.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Peterson and ASME.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head is
hexahedronal. Appellants argue that Peterson’s boss member 120 is
hexagonal in cross section and has eight primary faces, but is not a
hexahedron with six primary faces. Appeal Br. 5—6. The Examiner finds
that because Peterson’s boss member has a hexagon shape, Peterson shows a
hex head bolt. Ans. 3.
While we agree with Appellants (and apparently the Examiner) that
Peterson teaches a hex head bolt having a hexagon cross section which is not
a hexahedron,11 we note that ASME teaches a square head bolt which is
clearly a hexahedron. As discussed above, the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness of a combination of Peterson’s terminal stud
with ASME’s square head bolt dimensions, thus providing a hexahedronal
(square) head on the stud.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head has
an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and having a width
less than the length of the sidewall. The Examiner finds that the ASME bolt
has a head whose endwall is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and has
11 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hexahedron, last visited
May 4, 2017, which defines “hexahedron” as “a polyhedron of six faces
(such as a cube).”
7
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
a width less than the sidewall length. Ans. 3, referring to the ASME table.
Appellants argue that ASME applies to square head bolts, whereas this claim
requires that the head is not square. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is
persuasive of reversible error. Although the Examiner finds that ASME
teaches an endwall whose width is less than the length of a sidewall and
references the ASME table, we are unable to locate any support for this
finding in the ASME table or elsewhere. Further, we agree with Appellants’
interpretation of claim 19 that the head of the terminal stud cannot be square.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has met
the minimum threshold of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSRInt’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 19.
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Delcourt and ASME
Claim 1
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final
Office Action, page 4. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not interpret Delcourt’s shoulder 64 to be a head. Appeal Br. 7.
However, as discussed above, the head of the terminal stud is merely
structurally defined as having the threaded portion extending therefrom.
Delcourt’s threaded portion 65 is clearly extending from shoulder 64.
Delcourt, Fig. 3. As Appellants do not explain why this finding is in error,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred.
8
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
Appellants also argue, similarly to their arguments with regard to
Peterson, that the ordinary artisan would not look to ASME, which relates to
square head bolts, to modify Delcourt’s hex head bolt. Appeal Br. 7. For
the same reasons given above, we likewise do not find this argument
persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,
and 6 over Delcourt and ASME.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires a second terminal
stud that is received within the slot of the base. We construe this claim to
require two terminal studs that are received in the same slot of the base.
The Examiner finds that Delcourt discloses a second terminal stud
received within the slot of the base. Ans. 4, citing Delcourt, Fig. 1, element
21. Appellants argue that Delcourt fails to teach a second terminal stud
received with the aperture 75 of the eyelet 61 which closely matches the size
of the shoulder. Appeal Br. 7—8. As such, Appellants urge that the
Examiner’s finding is misplaced. We agree. The Examiner merely indicates
that element 21 meets this claim. However, we are unable to find any
disclosure in Delcourt where two studs are received in a single slot of a base.
Each of Delcourt’s stud electrical connections 21 has a separate connector
55 with a single eyelet aperture 75 for receiving a single shoulder (head) of a
single stud. Delcourt, Fig. 1; || 15—18. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
finding lacks support in the record. We are, therefore, constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5.
9
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the head has
an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the sidewall and having a width
less than the length of the sidewall. As above, Appellants argue that ASME
applies to square head bolts, whereas this claim requires that the head is not
square. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible
error. Although the Examiner finds that ASME teaches an endwall whose
width is less than the length of a sidewall and references the ASME table,
we are unable to locate any support for this finding in the ASME table or
elsewhere. Further, we agree with Appellants’ interpretation of claim 19
that the head of the terminal stud cannot be square. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19.
Rejection 3: §103 over Mangapora and ASME
Claim 1
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final
Office Action, page 5. Appellants argue that Mangapora clearly describes
element 5 as the head, and not a structure that is axially between head 5 and
threaded shaft 8. Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellants, the ordinary
artisan would not interpret Mangapora’s shank 7 as a head given
Mangapora’s description of element 5 as the head. Id. Appellants also
argue that ASME would only apply to square head bolts, whereas
Mangapora’s shank 7 has a circular profile. Id. Appellants also assert that
ASME does not teach the ratio of claim 1 as a result effective variable. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner
notes that Mangapora teaches a number of cross-sectional shapes for the
10
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
shank 7, including both hex head and square head. Ans. 4, citing
Mangapora, Figs. 10, 11, 13, and 14. In addition, the Examiner notes that
claim 1 merely requires a threaded portion extending from a head.
Therefore, regardless what element Mangapora identifies as a head, the
structure from which Mangapora’s threaded portion 8 extends from is shank
7. As such, the Examiner’s finding that shank 7 is a head within the
meaning of claim 1 is reasonable. In addition, we note that shank 7 as
shown in Figures 10, 11, 13, and 14 provide a torsion-resistant or anti­
rotation feature when engaged in the hole or slot 20 of plate or base 3.
Mangapora 3:54—67.
Finally, we note that though ASME does not teach that the ratio is a
result effective variable, ASME nonetheless teaches a ratio for a square head
bolt that is within the claimed range. As such, no optimization or routine
experimentation is necessary to arrive at the claimed range. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Mangapora and
ASME.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the head have
an endwall perpendicular to the sidewall, wherein the ratio of the sidewall
length to the endwall width is from 1.67 to 1.80. The Examiner finds
Mangapora has these features, but then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to have a ratio of the length of the endwall to the width of the
sidewall as 1.67 to 1.80.” Final Act. 5, citing In re A Her. Appellants argue
that the Examiner fails to point to any teaching or suggestion of this ratio in
Mangapora, noting that Mangapora, Figure 11, teaches a square cross-
section. Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants contend that Mangapora fails to teach a
11
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
ratio of the length of the sidewall to the width of the endwall is from 1.67 to
1.80. Id. at 9. The Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments merely
reasserts that Mangapora does suggest a ratio as recited in claim 4 without
specifically addressing the merits of these arguments or to direct attention to
any specific portion of Mangapora in support of the Examiner’s findings.
The Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite factual
basis and may not, because of doubts that the invention is patentable, resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (“To facilitate review, [the obviousness] analysis should be
made explicit.”); see also, In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”), quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Here, the Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that
Mangapora teaches or suggests the recited ratio of claim 4, nor has the
Examiner addressed Appellants’ substantive argument that Mangapora’s
square cross-section does not teach or suggest such a ratio. Indeed, because
Mangapora clearly teaches a square head whose ratio would be 1.00 and the
Examiner fails to direct attention to any disclosure where the length of one
side of the head is greater than the width of another side, we are constrained
to reverse this rejection of claim 4.
Claim 19
As previously discussed above, we have found that a teaching of a
square head alone as the Examiner’s finds in Mangapora and ASME is
12
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
insufficient to render obvious a non-square head whose length and width are
different. Thus, for the same reasons given above, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19 over Mangapora in view of
ASME.
Rejection 4: §103 over AAPA in view ofYohn and ASME, alone or further
in view of Mangapora
Claim 7
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final
Office Action, pages 6—7 and 9-10. Appellants argue that Yohn fails to
teach any slot receiving head from a plurality of terminal studs. Appeal Br.
9. Appellants urge that “[t]he areas 301 and 303 in Yohn receive, at most,
the area 301 or the area 305, not both the area 301 and the area 305.” Id.
(emphasis added). However, we note claim 7 does not require that the heads
of each of the terminal studs is received within the same slot. Instead, claim
7 merely requires that the block has a plurality of terminal studs, each
having a threaded portion extending from a head. Claim 7 further recites
“the head received with the slot,” without identifying which head of the
plurality of terminal studs “the head” is referencing. Because the recitation
uses the singular, “the head,” rather than the plural, “the heads,” the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 7 encompasses a single head received
within the slot. To require otherwise would render claim 9, which requires
that the slot receive the heads of two terminal studs, redundant and not
further limiting.
Given the above interpretation of claim 7, Appellants’ argument,
which presumes that claim 7 requires plural head are received in the slot,
13
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
fails to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of this
claim. Appellants do not argue claims 13—15, and 18 separately.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 13—15,
and 18.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 7 and further requires that the sidewall
has an area from 2.18 to 2.35 square inches. Appellants argue that ASME
fails to teach a sidewall having an area within the recited range. Appeal Br.
9. Appellants do not, however, argue with any particularity why ASME’s
teaching of a 2.25 inch width across the head flat (equivalent to the sidewall
length) and a 1 inch head height (equivalent to the sidewall height) of the 1.5
inch nominal size square head fails to teach a sidewall area within the recited
range (2.25 inches by 1 inch equals 2.25 square inches). We will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 7 and further requires, similarly to
claim 19, that the head has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the
sidewall, and the sidewall has a width that is less than the length of the
sidewall. As before, though the Examiner relies on ASME for teaching an
endwall having a width different from the sidewall, ASME’s teaching of a
square head bolt is insufficient as both the endwalls and sidewalls of such a
head are equal. Accordingly, for the same reasons as given above with
regard to claim 19, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this
claim.
14
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further requires, similarly to claim
2 that the head is hexadronal. Appellants argue that Mangapora’s head is
not hexadronal. Appeal Br. 10. However, for the same reasons as given
above with regard to claim 2, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting this claim based on, among others, ASME
which teaches a square or hexahedronal head. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further requires that the slot
receives the heads of two terminal studs. Appellants argue that the
Examiner cannot rely on areas 301, 303 in the rejection of the independent
claim, and then rely on an area between elements 111 as teaching the slots in
the rejection of claim 9. Appeal Br. 10. In addition, Appellants contend that
the portions of Yohn relied on as teaching the claimed heads do not interface
directly with dividers 111. Id. As such, Appellants argue that dividers 111
cannot be relied on as teaching the claimed slot. Id.
The Examiner does not respond to Appellants’ arguments regarding
claim 9, instead relying on prior responses with regard to the prior
rejections. See Ans. 5. In addition, we note that the slot which is defined by
Yohn’s dividers 111 does not have slot walls, one of which interfaces
directly with the head of a terminal stud and wherein the slot receives the
heads of two terminal studs. Yohn merely teaches a base 101 incorporating
conductive member 205 which itself defines a plurality of slots, each of
which receives and directly interfaces with the head of a single terminal
15
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
stud. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9
and dependent claim 10.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 via claim 15 (which requires using a
second terminal stud), and further requires contacting the sidewall of both
terminal studs with a common wall of a base. Appellants argue that Yohn
fails to teach this feature, wherein area 301 of one terminal stud contacts a
first wall and area 301 of a second terminal stud contacts another wall.
Appeal Br. 11. Although the Examiner finds that Yohn discloses this feature
(Final Act. 10), the Examiner does not direct attention to any specific
teaching in Figure 3 that meets the recitation of claim 16, nor do we find
any. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 14 and further requires, similarly to
claims 19 and 20, that the head has an endwall that is generally
perpendicular to the sidewall and has a width that is less than the length of
the sidewall. For the same reasons as given above for claims 19 and 20, we
likewise will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Claims 12 and 17
Claim 12 depends from claim 7 and claim 17 depends from claim 14.
Each of these dependent claims, like claim 4, further requires that the head
of the terminal stud has an endwall that is generally perpendicular to the
sidewall and has a width such that the ratio of the length of the sidewall to
the width of the endwall is from 1.67 to 1.80. Appellants argue that each of
these dependent claims is patentable for the same reasons presented against
the rejection of claim 4, which we found persuasive. Appeal Br. 11.
16
Appeal 2016-002281
Application 13/349,112
Accordingly, for the same reasons as given above with respect to claim 4,
we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of each of claims 12 and
17.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 2 as
unpatentable over Peterson in view of ASME, of claims 1,3, and 6 as
unpatentable over Delcourt in view of ASME, of claim 1 as unpatentable
over Mangapora in view of ASME, of claims 7, 8, 11, 13—15, and 18 as
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Yohn and ASME, alone or further in
view of Mangapora, are each sustained.
However, for the reasons given in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, each
of the § 103 rejections of claim 19 as unpatentable over Peterson and
ASME, claims 5 and 19 over Delcourt and ASME, claims 4 and 19 over
Mangapora and ASME, and claims 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, and 21 over AAPA,
Yohn, and ASME, with or without Mangapora, are not sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—3, 6—8, 11, 13—15,
and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17,
and 19—21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17