Ex Parte Fitzpatrick et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 18, 201713185583 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/185,583 07/19/2011 KEVIN J. FITZPATRICK SUB-01730-US-NP 2580 173 7590 01/20/2017 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 EXAMINER VORTMAN, ANATOLY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2017 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz @ whirlpool .com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN J. FITZPATRICK and RYAN K. ROTH Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GEORGE C. BEST, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicants (hereinafter the “Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1— 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is “Whirlpool Corporation” (Appeal Brief filed October 14, 2014, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 2). 2 Appeal Br. 2, 5—20; Final Office Action delivered electronically on May 14, 2014, hereinafter “Final Act.,” 3—8; Examiner’s Answer delivered electronically on December 26, 2014, hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—12. Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a circuit board for use in appliances such as automatic dishwashers (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” 11). The Specification explains that the circuit board is provided with a fuse region, which evanesces to separate the circuit board’s power input pins from the circuit board’s other components and thus disconnect the power supply when arc tracking occurs {id. H 41—42; Fig. 7—8). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 22 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key disputed limitations highlighted in italicized text, as follows: 1. A circuit board comprising: a substrate; a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula element; a power input connector provided on the peninsula element; and an electrical trace provided on the substrate and extending onto the peninsula element and conductively connected with the power input connector; wherein the power input connector is spaced from a junction of the peninsula element and the substrate to define a fuse region in the peninsula element, between the junction and the power input connector, that evanesces with heat in response to arc tracking along the electrical trace to the power input connector to electrically open the power input connector relative to the electrical trace. 2 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL3 The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: I. Claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as anticipated by McGalliard4 (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2—6); II. Claims 4—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as unpatentable over McGalliard (Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 2, 11—12); and III. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as anticipated by Still5 (Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 2, 6—11). DISCUSSION We address the Examiner’s rejection in a different order than that presented in the Final Action. I. Anticipation by McGalliard The Appellants argue claims 1—3 together (Appeal Br. 6—10). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by this rule, claims 2 and 3 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner found that McGalliard describes every limitation recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 3). Specifically, the Examiner found that McGalliard’s Figure 12 discloses a substrate 262 provided with a slot 264 3 On page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner withdrew a final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) of claim 1 as anticipated by Fischer (US 5,280,262, issued January 18, 1994). Therefore, that rejection is not before us. 4 US 4,394,639, issued July 19, 1983. 5 US 4,404,536, issued September 13, 1983. 3 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 “defining a peninsula element” as required by claim 1 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner found further that substrate 262 is provided with electrical traces (referred to as printed fuse circuits by McGalliard) 270 (not labeled in Fig. 12) and 272, each extending into what may be considered as the “peninsula element” (grayed out area shown in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 12) and being connected to a power input connector in a manner similar to that shown in Figure 6 (id.). Additionally, the Examiner found that substrate 262 is provided with fuse regions (referred to as fuse elements by McGalliard) 274 and 276, which would evanesce with heat in response to arc tracking (id.). The Appellants contend that McGalliard does not disclose certain limitations recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6—10). Specifically, the Appellants identify and base their arguments on the following: 1. “circuit board”; 2. “a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula element”; and 3. “a fuse region in the peninsula element, between the junction and the power input connector, that evanesces with heat in response to arc tracking along the electrical trace to the power input connector to electrically open the power input connector relative to the electrical trace.” For the reasons discussed below, the Appellants’ arguments fail to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation findings as to claim 1. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 1. The “circuit board” limitation Regarding the “circuit board” limitation, the Appellants argue that McGalliard’s substrate 262 is a substrate of fuse element 260, not a circuit 4 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 board (Appeal Br. 8). Although the Appellants acknowledge that McGalliard’s fuse assembly 260 is inserted into connectors (as shown in Figure 6) to be within a circuit board, they urge that “[a] fuse that may be applied to a circuit board is not the same thing as a circuit board having a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula element” (id. at 9). “[DJuring patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id. at 322. “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Applying these principles, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 5). Here, the Appellants do not direct us to any special definition in the Specification for “circuit board,” or any credible evidence (e.g., expert declaration testimony), that would compel a finding that McGalliard does not describe a “circuit board” as required by claim 1. Absent sufficient basis to construe “circuit board” narrowly, the Examiner did not err by giving the terms their broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art, as reflected in the Examiner’s unrebutted dictionary definition (defining “circuit board” as including “a sheet of insulating material used for the mounting and interconnection (often by a printed circuit) of components in electronic equipment”) (id. (citing hftp://www.dictionary.com/browse/circuit-board). ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1379 (“[W]e look to the specification to see if it 5 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation. ”))). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as offered by the Examiner, we share the Examiner’s finding that McGalliard’s dual in-line fuse element 260 itself, as shown in Figure 12, is a “circuit board” as recited broadly in claim 1. Consistent with its ordinary meaning, fuse element 260 includes a substrate board 262 with electronic components, such as printed fused circuit 272, formed on it (col. 15.11. 3—7). Moreover, as acknowledged by the Appellants (Appeal Br. 9), McGalliard’s fuse element 260 may be incorporated into a circuit board in a manner similar to that as shown in Figure 6 and, in that instance, the entire assembly can be considered a “circuit board.” Indeed, McGalliard explicitly describes forming fuse elements directly on a printed circuit board (e.g., col. 2.11. 41—44; col. 4,11. 22-32). Accordingly, we find no basis to overturn the Examiner’s rejection on the basis of the “circuit board” limitation. 2. The “a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula element” limitation Referring to the Examiner’s annotated Figure 12 (Final Act. 3), the Appellants argue that “the Examiner has identified a piece of a fuse as the peninsula region that, at best, might be described as defined by the outer dimensions of the substrate including two slots (264)” (Appeal Br. 8). According to the Appellants, “[t]his is completely different from the claimed limitation of a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula region in a circuit board” (Appeal Br. 8). 6 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 We disagree for the reasons well-stated by the Examiner (Ans. 3—4). Specifically, McGalliard’s Figure 12, as annotated by the Examiner, is reproduced below: Annotated Figure 12 above depicts fuse element 260 including a substrate board 262, the contours of which are defined partially by slots 264 (McGalliard, col. 14,11. 65—68). The Examiner found that the grayed out region of substrate 262 in annotated Figure 12 constitutes a “peninsula element” (Final Act. 3). Although the Appellants contend that this is “completely different from the claimed limitation” (Appeal Br. 8), their arguments are devoid of any meaningful explanation on why the grayed out region cannot be considered a “peninsula element” as recited in the claim. Again, the Appellants do not direct us to any special definition for “defining” or “peninsula element” that would serve to distinguish claim 1 over McGalliard (see, e.g., Reply Brief filed February 24, 2015 at 2). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we find no error in the Examiner’s determination that any projection, such as that indicated by the grayed out region, may be considered a “peninsula element.” McGalliard’s slots 264 7 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 define—at least partially—the contours of the grayed out projection. Because claim 1 does not require a “slot” to fully define the “peninsula element,” we find that the grayed out region in the annotated figure can reasonably be considered as disclosing “a slot in the substrate defining a peninsula element” as required by claim 1. 3. The “fuse region in the peninsula element, between the junction and the power input connector, that evanesces with heat in response to arc tracking along the electrical trace to the power input connector to electrically open the power input connector relative to the electrical trace ” limitation The Appellants contend that “[t]he peninsula also provides for arc tracking protection because, when it evanesces, it has a surrounding air gap from the rest of the circuit board, which protects the rest of the substrate” and that “[n]o special circuitry is used for [the] Appellants’ fuse” (Appeal Br. 9). The Appellants argue that McGalliard, by contrast, teaches “traditional fuse circuitry” and that “[sjimply put there is no teaching in McGalliard . . . that a region of the peninsula element (a portion of the substrate defined by the slot) will evanesce with heat in response to arc tracking” (Appeal Br. 10). We find no merit in the Appellants’ argument. McGalliard explicitly teaches that when current passes through the fuse element and the current exceeds the fuse element’s rated value, the generated heat causes the neck of the fuse element to bum out or vaporize (col. 5,11. 30—37; col. 15,11. 16—18). Therefore, it would reasonably appear that McGalliard’s fuse elements would evanesce with heat in the event arc tracking occurs. The Appellants offer no evidence to the contrary. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). 8 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 Because the Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation finding as to claim 1, we uphold Rejection I. II. Obviousness in View of McGalliard The Appellants appear to be relying on the alleged differences between claim 1 and McGalliard to argue that the Examiner failed to ascertain the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Appeal Br. 18—20). Because we disagree with the Appellants that claim 1 differs from McGalliard for the reasons discussed above, we find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. III. Anticipation by Still We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation (Appeal Br. 14—18). In particular, we find that the Examiner failed to show that Still describes, either explicitly or inherently, a fuse region that evanesces, or would evanesce, with heat in response to arc tracking. The Examiner states that “[tjhis is an inherited [sic] function of [Still’s] fuse region, since it [is] designed to bum out (open) in order to protect the electrical circuit connected thereto” (Ans. 11). But the Examiner failed to direct us to any disclosure in Still, or sufficient technical reasoning, to establish that Still’s fusible conductor 8 as shown in Figure 3 would necessarily evanesce in the event of arc tracking. Therefore, we cannot uphold Rejection III. 9 Appeal 2015-004304 Application 13/185,583 SUMMARY Rejections I and II are affirmed. Rejection III is reversed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—17 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). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation