Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2013

12313448 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013)

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.
12/313,448 11/20/2008 Lloyd Herbert King JR. 6381Cont 5394
44341 7590 09/10/2013
JACOBSON & JOHNSON
ONE WEST WATER STREET, SUITE 285
ST. PAUL, MN 55107
EXAMINER
IMAS, VLADIMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LLOYD HERBERT KING, JR.,
MICHAEL BELGERI, JAMES C. KEEVEN, and
WILLIAM HINER
________________

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before SALLY G. LANE, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Daum
(US 3,350,677, October 31, 1967) (“Daum”), Brown et al. (US 4,189,204,
February 19, 1980) (“Brown”), and Yaworski et al. (US 2004/0121639 Al,
June 24, 2004) (“Yaworski”).1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an electrical connector for
connecting wires including dissimilar electrical conductors such as copper
and aluminum conductors with the electrical connector including failure
inhibiting features that can include an oxidation inhibiting coating and a
sealant. To ensure that a minimum pressure contact has been achieved at
the interface between the electrical connector a shearable fastener can be
used to secure an electrical conductor in the electrical connector. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue in this appeal. App. Br.
19. Claim 1 recites:
1. An electrical connector comprising:

1 Claims 10 and 21 have been canceled. App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

3
an electrical insulated housing having a terminal block
compartment therein;

an electrically insulated cover for forming a protective
closure over the terminal block compartment;

a first conductor inlet extending outward from said
insulated housing;

a second conductor inlet extending outward from said
insulated housing;

a tin plated electrically conducting terminal block, said
terminal block electrically isolatable and confineable in the
terminal block compartment said terminal block having a first
threaded passage and a second threaded passage;

a first nickel plated terminal screw for rotatingly
engaging the first threaded passage;

a second nickel plated terminal screw for rotatingly engaging
the second threaded passage;

a first conductor passage located in said terminal block
with said first conductor passage intersecting with the first
threaded passage so that rotation of the first terminal screw in a
first direction in the first threaded passage brings a conductor in
the first conductor passage into current conducting condition
through pressure contact of the first conductor with the terminal
block;

a second conductor passage located in said terminal
block with said second conductor passage intersecting with the
second threaded passage so that rotation of the second terminal
screw in the second threaded passage in a first direction brings
a conductor in the second conductor passage into a current
conducting condition through pressure contact with the terminal
block;

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

4
a first sealant located in said first conductor passage with
said first sealant extending over an interface between an end of
the first terminal screw and the conductor in the first conductor
passage; and

a second sealant located in said second conductor
passage with said second sealant extending over an interface
between an end of the second terminal screw and the conductor
in the second conductor passage to thereby provide a sealant
covered connection of the conductor in the first conductor
passage and the second conductor passage.

App. Br. 11-12.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the
cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 reciting
“a tin plated terminal block” and “a nickel plated fastener.” App. Br. 17-18.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred because the prior art
references fail to disclose the prevention of electrical failure and possible
fires in electrical junctions by inhibiting the oxidation at a
junction between a terminal block and a fastener in the electrical junctions.
App. Br. 18. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so
erred.

Analysis
Appellants has not directed us to sufficient evidence that the prior art
references fail to disclose the limitations reciting “a tin plated terminal
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

5
block” and “a nickel plated fastener” other than a recitation of the claim
terms and conclusory statement that the prior art does teach or suggest
them. As such, Appellants’ argument fails to rise to the level that we need
consider on appeal. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011):
(“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).
Moreover, although Appellants argue that Daum, Brown, and
Yaworski each fail to recognize the potential problems of electrical failure
and possible fires in electrical junctions (App. Br. 18), such language is
equally absent from the Appellants’ claims and therefore do not fall within
the scope of Appellants’ claimed invention. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification may not be read into the
claims). We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in this
respect.

Issue 2
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1
reciting: “said first conductor passage intersecting with the first threaded
passage,” “said second conductor passage intersecting with the second
threaded passage so that rotation of the second terminal screw in the second
threaded passage,” “first sealant extending over an interface between an end
of the first terminal screw and the conductor,” and “second sealant
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

6
extending over an interface between an end of the second terminal screw
and the conductor.” App. Br. 19. We therefore address the issue of
whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 specifically calls for a first
conductor passage intersecting with a first threaded passage and a second
conductor passage intersecting with a second threaded passage. App. Br.
20. Appellants argue that Daum’s access bores 24 and the portion beneath
Daum’s threaded bore 26, which is part of socket space 22, are not threaded
passages. Id. Appellants contend that, with respect to Daum’s threaded
bore 26, Daum does not teach that the bore 18 intersects with the threaded
bore 26, because the threading of the threaded bore 26 of bus bar 10 ends or
ceases before reaching the conductor passage of the bus bar 10. Id. (citing
Daum, Figs. 2-5).
Appellants argue further that Yaworski likewise fails to teach or
suggest the feature of a terminal block having conductor passages that
intersect with threaded passages. App. Br. 20. Appellants assert that
Yaworski instead explicitly teaches that the threaded bore 116 portion of
screw 102 ending or ceasing before reaching the interior cavity 122 of
Yaworski conductor member 110. Id. (citing Yaworski, Figs 3, 4, 8, 9, and
11).
The Examiner responds that Daum explicitly teaches that the
interface between the conductor [42, 46, 50] or conductor passage [where
the conductors are located] and the respective terminal screws. Ans. 11
(Daum, Figs. 3-5).
App
App

that:
116
wall
this
ass

thus
cond
the t
bore
eal 2011-0
lication 12
We are n
“[t]he set
to force th
of the bor
embodime
Fi
embly tau
Appellan
teaches se
uctor 122
hreaded bo
is continu
04170
/313,448
ot persuad
screw 102
e exposed
e 112.” Y
nt. Figure
gure 4 is a
ght by Ya
ts’ argum
t screw 10
inserted in
re is conti
ous with th
ed by App
is then ro
portion of
aworski, ¶
4 of Yaw
is a cross-
worski, in
as
ents to the
2 in a thre
to the bor
nuous. Ya
e bore of
7
ellants’ a
tatively dr
the condu
[0049]. F
orski is rep
sectional v
which a ca
sembly.

contrary n
aded bore
e of a cond
worski th
the condu
rguments.
iven … int
ctor 5A ag
igure 4 of
roduced b
iew of th
ble is inst
otwithsta
116 in dir
uctor pass
us teaches
ctor passag
Yaworsk
o the threa
ainst the o
Yaworski
elow:
e busbar
alled in th
nding, Yaw
ect contact
age 112 w
that the th
e. We the
i teaches
ded bore
pposing
illustrates
e busbar
orski
with a
ith which
readed
refore

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

8
conclude that the Examiner did not err in determing that the cited prior art
references teach or suggest the limitations disputed by Appellant.

B. Claim 5
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of
independent claim 5 reciting “covering an interface on the aluminum
conductor and on the second conductor with a sealant to inhibit corrosion.”
App. Br. 21. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so
erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Daum’s teaching the use of a rubber
combination cap and adaptor/plug 34 having a bore 36 fitted with a nylon
dowel is different from the use of the sealant to inhibit corrosion as
called for in Appellants’ independent method claim 5. App. Br. 21.
Appellants argue that Yaworski also fails to teach or suggest the step
of using a sealant to inhibit corrosion but instead teaches the use of
sealant 160 to “provide a reliable moisture barrier [f]or the cable and the
conductor 110, even when the connector 101 is submerged” and “to
reduce or prevent fire ….” Id. (citing Yaworski, ¶¶ [0057], [0058]).
Appellants contend that Yaworski’s teaching the use of a sealant as
moisture barrier or to reduce or prevent fire is different from Appellants’
step of a sealant to inhibit corrosion as called for in claim 5.
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

9
The Examiner responds that Yaworski discloses a sealant 160 located
in the conductor passage with the sealant extending over an interface
between an end of the first terminal screw 102 and the conductor 5A. Ans.
11 (citing Yaworski, Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art to
combine Daum’s and Brown’s contact area with Yaworski’s sealant located
in the conductor passage with the sealant extending over an interface
between an end of the terminal screw and the conductor in the conductor
passage to provide a sealant covered connection. Ans. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ reasoning. We agree with the
Examiner that Yaworski teaches the use of a sealant, as required by claim 5.
Although Yaworski teaches that the purpose of the sealant is to “provide a
reliable moisture barrier [f]or the cable,” Yaworski also teaches that it is
well-known in the art that “[i]f the conductor member and the conductors
are left exposed, water and environmental contaminants may cause
corrosion thereon.” Yaworski, ¶ [0004]. We find that it would therefore
have been known in the contemporaneous art that the use of a sealant to
exclude water and other environmental contaminants could be employed to
prevent corrosion. We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of
claim 5 reciting “covering an interface on the aluminum conductor and on
the second conductor with a sealant to inhibit corrosion.”

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

10
C. Claim 12
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combined cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of
dependent claim 12 reciting “including rotating the terminal fastener until a
shear condition is achieved in the terminal fastener to ensure that a
minimum pressure contact with the aluminum conductor has been
achieved.” App. Br. 22. We therefore address the issue of whether the
Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that, although the Daum teaches that follower 29
engages bared conductors 42, 46, and 50 of varying sizes, Daum does not
teach or suggest that follower 29 forms a shear condition with bared
conductors 42, 46, and 50. App. Br. 22. Appellants argue that mere
engagement between two components is different from the formation of a
shear condition by two components. Id.
The Examiner responds that Daum discloses threaded bore 26 with a
screw 28 and the conductors [42, 46, 50] being clamped by the screw to
make an electrical connection. Ans. 12 (citing Daum, Figs. 2-5). The
Examiner finds that clamping of the screw to the conductor would require a
step of rotating the terminal fastener until shear condition is achieved (i.e., a
shear condition is necessary to clamp the conductor by the screw to make
electrical contact). Ans. 12.
We agree with the Examiner. Daum teaches that “[t]he bus bar 10
has a threaded bore 26 of reduced diameter registering respectively with
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

11
each of the access bores 24, and each receiving 55 a screw 28 provided with
a metal follower 29 for clamping the connector against the opposite side of
the socket.” Daum, col. 2, ll. 52-56; see also Figs. 3-5. We find that an
artisan of ordinary skill would understand that when a rotating screw is
applied to a connector with sufficient force to clamp it to the opposite side
of the socket, a condition of shear is applied to the connector. We therefore
conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited combined art
references teach or suggest the disputed limitation.

D. Claim 14
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determing that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 14 reciting “a
sealant extending over the junction of the nickel plated fastener to a
conductor in the terminal block.” App. Br. 24. We therefore address the
issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Brown, rather than teaching a nickel-plated
fastener, teaches instead “a terminal 20 made of brass and [ ] plated with
nickel.” App. Br. 24 (citing Brown, col. 3, ll. 43-51). Appellants contend
that the terminal 20 taught by Brown functions to house wire 36 and is not
for forming a junction with a conductor in a terminal block as required by
claim 14. App. Br. 24.
The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a terminal block and
Brown discloses tin plating on the first part and nickel plating on the second
App
App

part.
Brow
nick
oxid

expl
Exam
the c
of Sc

Brow
below
eal 2011-0
lication 12
Ans. 13.
n, therefo
el plated fa
ation at the
We are n
icitly defin
iner may
laim term
i. Tech Ct
Brown r
Retainer
Termina
nickel c
zinc in t
and even
tin and t
n, col. 3,
:
04170
/313,448
The Exam
re disclose
stener to a
junction
ot persuad
e the claim
therefore
that is con
r., 367 F.3
ecites, in r
30 is mad
l 20 is m
oating is d
he brass a
tual failu
he termina
ll. 43-51; s
iner finds
s a sealan
conducto
of the con
ed by App
term “fa
employ th
sistent wit
d 1359, 13
elevant pa
e of beryl
ade of bra
esirable t
nd the tin,
re of the b
l. Contact
ee also Br
12
that the co
t extendin
r in the ter
ductor to t
ellants’ a
stener” in
e broadest
h the Spec
64 (Fed. C
rt:
lium copp
ss and is
o prevent
and thus
ond (to b
26 is braz
own, Fig.

mbination
g over the
minal blo
he fastener
rguments.
their Spec
reasonabl
ification.
ir. 2004).
er and is p
plated wi
inter-actio
avoid grad
e describe
ed on.
3. Figure
of Daum
junction o
ck to furth
. Ans. 8.
Appellan
ification an
e interpret
See In re

lated with
th nickel.
n between
ual weake
d) betwee
3 is repro

and
f the
er inhibit
ts do not
d the
ation of
Am. Acad.
tin.
The
the
ning
n the
duced

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

13
Figure 4 is an isometric view of a terminal, retainer,
and pin.

The nickel-plated terminal 20 taught by Brown, when combined with
retainer 30, securely holds pin 38 and wire 36 in place and is therefore
consistent with the claim term “nickel-plated fastener.” See Brown, Fig. 2,
col. 3, ll. 18-25, 31-34. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not
err in finding that the prior art references teach or suggest the disputed
limitation.

E. Claim 17
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determing that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 17 reciting “a
screw having a weakened region susceptible to shear.” We therefore
address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Daum fails to teach or suggest the disclosure of
a region located between threaded portion 28 and follower 29 of screw 28
that is susceptible to shear in response to a force thereon. App. Br. 26.
Appellants contend that although the Daum’s Figures 4, 5, and 6 show
follower 29 engaging bared conductors 42, 46, and 50, Daum does not
disclose follower 29 as forming a shear condition with the bared
conductors. Id.
The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a metal follower 29,
located at the end of the screw 28 and that the metal follower is located in a
App
App

groo
an ap

We f
attac
that
wou
simi
screw
there
conc

F. C
Issue

the c
recit
eal 2011-0
lication 12
ve or weak
plied forc
We agre
sh
ind that D
hed to foll
an artisan
ld exert a s
lar skill wo
engaging
fore neces
lude that t
laim 19

Appellan
ited prior
ing “a term
04170
/313,448
ened regi
e. Ans. 13
e with the
Figure
owing the
aum thus t
ower 29.
of ordinary
hearing fo
uld also a
the follow
sarily susc
he Examin
ts next ar
art referen
inal block
on and is h
.
Examiner
3 is a vert
parts arran
eaches a s
We have r
skill wou
rce on a w
ppreciate t
er 29, as
eptible to
er did not
gue that th
ces teach o
having an
14
ence susc
. Figure 3
ical transv
ged for a
crew with
elated sup
ld appreci
ire, and w
hat the sm
taught by
an applied
err in so f
e Examine
r suggest
oxidation
eptible to s
of Daum
erse sectio
smaller co
a smaller
ra our reas
ate that su
e find furt
aller diam
Daum, wo
shearing
inding.
r erred by
the limitat
inhibiting
hear in re
is reproduc

n
nductor
diameter e
oning for
ch an arra
her that an
eter portio
uld be we
force. We
determini
ion of clai
coating t
sponse to
ed below
nd
finding
ngement
artisan of
n of the
aker and
therefore
ng that
m 19
hereon; a
:

Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

15
fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon.” App. Br. 27. We
therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Daum does not teach or suggest an oxidation
inhibiting coating of insulation/block 12. App. Br. 27. Appellants also
argue that Daum does not teach or suggest an oxidation inhibiting coating
for screw 28.
Appellants also contend that instead Brown does not teach or suggest
a terminal block having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon and a
fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating, but rather teaches a
terminal-retainer assembly having an oxidation “preventing oil thereon.”
App. Br. 28. Appellants maintain that the bonded terminal-retainer
assembly having an oxidation preventing oil thereon, as taught by Brown, is
different from an electrical connector for inhibiting oxidation that includes
a terminal block having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon and a
fastener having an oxidation inhibiting coating thereon as required by claim
19. Id.
The Examiner responds that Daum discloses a terminal block and
Brown discloses tin plating on the first part and nickel plating on the second
part and, therefore, the combination of Daum and Brown discloses a
terminal block with tin plating on the terminal block and nickel plating on
the screw. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds that tin and nickel plating
provides oxidation inhibiting characteristic to the terminal block and the
fastener. Ans. 14.
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

16
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Yaworski teaches
that corrosion of connector elements by water or environmental
contaminants is well-known in the art. Yaworski, ¶ [0004]. We agree with
the Examiner that Daum discloses a terminal block and that Brown teaches
plating portions of the terminal and retainer inserted integrally into a block
as a corrosion-resistant measure. See Brown, col. 3, ll.43-51, Fig. 1. We
have related, supra, our reasoning with respect to why Brown teaches a
nickel-plated fastener. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err
in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the disputed
limitation.

G. Claim 19
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the
cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 20 reciting
“a shearable head.” App. Br. 29. We therefore address the issue of whether
the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
We have related, supra, our reasoning as to why we affirm the
Examiner’s findings that the prior art teaches or suggests the limitations
“rotating the terminal fastener until a shear condition is achieved in the
terminal fastener” and “a screw having a weakened region susceptible to
shear.” We add merely that Figure 3 of Daum depicts the head of the screw
(i.e., that part in contact with the follower) as having a decreased diameter
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

17
susceptible (as explained supra) to a shearing force and, consequently,
shearable. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err.

G. Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
Issue
Appellants argue that, even if the Examiner established a prima facie
case of obviousness, the Examiner erred by contintuing to reject the claims
in view of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. App. Br. 9, 30.
We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that there is a long-felt need to prevent fires that
may occur as a result of the overheating at the junctions between aluminum
conductors and/or copper conductors and that this problem has plagued the
electrical industry for over 40 years. App. Br. 31. Appellants adduce as
evidence of such a long-felt need a Loss Control Technical Bulletin entitled
“Reducing the Fire Hazards of Aluminum Wiring,” published by the
Philadelphia Insurance Companies (rev’d March 17, 2008) (the “Loss
Control Bulletin”). App. Br. 31; Exhibit A; see also Declaration of James
Keeven (“Keeven Decl.”) 2. Appellants point to the conclusions of the
Loss Control Bulletin, which they allege recognizes only three permanent
solutions to the problems of fires caused by junctions between aluminum
conductors and/or copper conductors, namely (1) removing all the
aluminum wire and replacing it with copper wire; (2) using a COPALUMTM
connector manufactured by Aircraft-Marine Products, Inc.; or (3) use an
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

18
ALUMINCONN™ connector (which Appellants allege corresponds to their
claimed invention). App. Br. 32; Loss Control Bulletin 1, Keeven Decl. 2.
Appellants argue further that the COPALUMTM connector requires a
special connector and a special crimping tool that requires installation by an
electrician who has been specifically trained and licensed, whereas
Appellants’ ALUMINCONNTM connectors can be installed by most
licensed electrician using standard tools and are consequently less
expensive to install. App. Br. 32-33; Keeven Decl. 3.
Appellants also adduce a draft letter, dated May, 2009, to Mr. Robert
L. Kath, Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee of The Shores
Townhouse Association of Aurora, CO, from Mr. Andrew M. Trotta,
Director, Division of Electrical Engineering, Directorate for Engineering
Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CSPC”), Bethesda,
MD. Exhibit C 1 (the “Trotta Draft Letter”). The Trotta Draft Letter was
written in response to a letter from Mr. Kath to Mr. Trotta, requesting
review and approval of repairs to 317 townhouses employing the
ALUMICONNTM connector, in preference to the more expensive
COPALUMTM connectors. Exhibit C 2 (the “Kath Letter”). The Trotta
Draft Letter relates that Dr. Jesse Aronstein, having tested Appellants’
ALUMICONNTM receptors, reported his findings at the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (“IEEE”) 53rd Holm Conference on
Electrical Contacts. Trotta Draft Letter 1. The Trotta Draft Letter relates
that Dr. Aronstein reported that:
These preliminary tests of the new [ALUMICONNTM]
setscrew splicing connection show it to be a satisfactory
candidate for the aluminum wire pigtailing connection.
Tightened to the manufacturer’s recommendation, it yields
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

19
consistent low-resistance aluminum wire terminations, a
projected low rate of resistance increase, and withstands wire
disturbance. A recommendation for its use as an alternative to
CPSC’s approved and well-proven compression connector is
justified where that recommended repair is not available. The
performance of the setscrew connector is far superior to that of
a twist-on connector that is presently marketed for the
application.

Id. The Trotta Draft letter proceeds to assure Mr. Kath that, although final
recommendations with respect to updating the CSPC’s aluminum wiring
repair recommendations document had not yet been made, that should not
“preclude you or any of the members of your townhouse community from
using the AlumiConn connector, which is listed by Underwriters
Laboratories as an acceptable method for joining copper conductors to
aluminum conductors and aluminum conductors to aluminum conductors.”
Trotta Draft Letter 1-2.
Appellants argue that the Trotta Draft Letter is the type of statement
that is within the scope of “laudatory statements” made by persons
knowledgeable in the art. Appellants contend that the Trotta Draft Letter,
coupled with the fact that the ALUMICONNTM connector is allegedly
recommended by Underwriters Laboratories, sufficiently establishes that
the Appellants’ invention is non-obviousness over the Examiner’s
combination of the cited references. App. Br. 15-16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Leaving aside the
question of how much evidentiary weight, if any, we should assign to the
unsigned, undated Trotta Draft Letter, Appellants’ evidence demonstrates
that there was, in fact, already at least one solution to the problem of fires
caused by junctions between aluminum conductors and/or copper
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

20
conductors, viz., the more expensive COPALUMTM connector. Loss
Control Bulletin 1; Kath Letter 1. Moreover, Appellants adduce no other
evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, (e.g., commercial
success, failure of others, skepticism of experts, teaching away by others,
etc.) beyond the single unsigned letter declaring that the AlumiConn
connector is an “acceptable method for joining copper conductors to
aluminum conductors and aluminum conductors to aluminum conductors”
and that it is “a satisfactory candidate for the aluminum wire pigtailing
connection.” Trotta Decl. Letter 1. Furthermore, Appellants do not provide
a detailed analysis to persuade us that the AlumiConn connector falls within
the scope of Appellants’ claimed connector.
When we when consider the totality of the evidence before us we
determine that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness was not in error.
See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(“Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do
not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion”). We consequently
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).
Appeal 2011-004170
Application 12/313,448

21

AFFIRMED

ke