Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2019

14237741 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/237,741 02/07/2014 27268 7590 04/02/2019 Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET SUITE 2700 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Helge Schmidt 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. TYCDE-0068-01-US-e 2750 EXAMINER MENDEZ, ZULMARIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1794 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): inteas@faegrebd.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HELGE SCHMIDT and UWE BLUEMMEL Appeal 2018-004824 Application 14/237,741 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-21. Wehavejurisdiction. 35U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellants describe the invention as relating to improved electrical connections, in particular pressure connections, between two contact 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TE Connectivity Germany Gmbh. Appeal Br. 3. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated March 21, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed August 23, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Appeal2018-004824 Application 14/23 7,741 elements. Spec. 1. Claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations and formatting modified for readability, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method for producing an electrical connection by means of plastic deformation between at least one contact face of a first contact element and a contact face of a second contact element, wherein the first contact element and the second contact element comprise materials with the same redox potential and a chemically reducing substance is applied to at least one of the contact faces. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App'x). REJECTIONS As a new ground of rejection presented in the Answer, the Examiner rejects claims 11-14 and 16-20, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) as anticipated by Fox, Jr. (US Patent No. 2,906,987; Sept. 29, 1959) ("Fox"). Ans. 2. The Examiner also rejects claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Fox in view ofKommareddi et al. (US 2003/0013783 Al; Jan. 16. 2003) ("Kommareddi"). Ans. 5. ANALYSIS 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), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t Examiner's Answer dated March 1, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed April 5, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-004824 Application 14/23 7,741 has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Appellants argue all claims as a group and do not present substantively separate arguments with regards to the Examiner's second rejection (i.e., the obviousness rejection). We therefore limit our discussion to claim 11. All remaining claims stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). The Examiner rejects claim 11 as anticipated by Fox. The Examiner finds, among other things, that Fox teaches first and second contact elements where both elements are made of aluminum ( and thus have the same redox potential). Ans. 3 ( citing Fox 1 :47-52). The Examiner finds that Fox teaches using a stabilizer to prevent deterioration of electrical properties. Id. (citing Fox 1:47-53; 2:28--42, 61-72). The Examiner finds that the fatty acid stabilizer disclosed by Fox is a chemically reducing substance as recited by claim 11. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that Fox teaches use of its stabilizer "for crimped electrical connections involving aluminum members .... " Id. at 6-7. If "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference," then the prior art reference anticipates the claim underÂ§ 102. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants argue that Fox does not anticipate claim 1 because Fox does not disclose use of a reducing agent (in Fox, the stabilizer) where 3 Appeal2018-004824 Application 14/23 7,741 both contact elements have the same redox potential (for example, where the contacts are made of the same material). Reply Br. 2--4. 3 The argument is not persuasive because, as explained below, the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's contrary position. Appellants emphasize that Fox teaches that "nothing beyond crimping" is necessary where both contacts are copper. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants' emphasis misses the mark because Fox teaches that deterioration may occur where one or both contacts are aluminum: Crimped connections in which one of the members is of aluminum and the other is of copper exhibit this tendency [ increased resistance over time] to a particularly serious degree and crimped aluminum-to-aluminum connections are also subject to the phenomenon although aluminium-to-aluminum connections are not subject to deterioration in this respect to as great an extent as are aluminum-to-copper connections. Fox 1:47-55 (emphasis added). In other words, Fox teaches that deterioration is at its worst where the connection is aluminum-to-copper but also teaches that deterioration still exists when the connection is aluminum- to-aluminum. See also id. at 1 :42--47 (referring to problems where connection involves "at least one aluminum member"); 2:28-33 ("Therefore, there is a need for a more effective stabilizer for crimped electrical connections involving at least one aluminum member .... " (Emphasis added.)). Fox then teaches avoiding deterioration by treating "crimped electrical connections, involving an aluminum ferrule or conductor" with "a 3 Because the Examiner provided a new ground of rejection in the Answer, we reference Appellants' Reply Brief. We note, however, that Appellants' Appeal Brief provides similar argument. Appeal Br. 5-7. 4 Appeal2018-004824 Application 14/23 7,741 stabilizing material containing an unsaturated fatty acid and metal particles." Fox 2:62-65. An electrical connection "involving an aluminum ferrule or conductor" literally and read in isolation could be aluminum connected to anything conductive-including an aluminum-to-aluminum connection. Reading Fox as a whole, its teaching of "crimped electrical connections, involving an aluminum ferrule or conductor" is best understood as meaning, at a minimum, crimped connections that are either aluminum-to-copper or aluminum-to-aluminum. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have read Fox in this manner because Fox expressly teaches that aluminum- to-aluminum connections exhibit exactly the kind of deterioration that Fox's stabilizing material resolves. Fox 1 :47-55. Fox refers to using the stabilizing material with connections "involving" aluminum in order to reference aluminum-to-aluminum connections rather limit than the disclosure solely to aluminum-to-copper connections. Because Appellants' arguments do not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner's rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5