NEXANS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 3, 2021

2020004515 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2021)

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. 15/213,868 07/19/2016 Gert STAUCH 979-839 9700 39600 7590 06/03/2021 SOFER & HAROUN LLP. 215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1301 NEW YORK, NY 10016 EXAMINER LE, THANH TAM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2021 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): dockets@soferharoun.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERT STAUCH and PETER GROTSCH Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–6. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nexans. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a connector for at least one electrical cable. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A connector for connecting one or more electrical cables, the cables being surrounded by a cover and having electrical conductors that are formed from a plurality of individual wires, said connector comprising: a pipe shaped clamping body made of metal having a wall, said pipe shaped clamping body for receiving said electrical conductors of the cables, wherein in said wall of said clamping body, at least one position, is provided with two throughholes with threads, into which, in a mounting position, two clamping screws are screwed which act on the same area of said electrical conductors, said throughholes having longitudinal central axes that are on the same half of said clamping body in a substantially V-shaped arrangement through said wall, and are at an angle relative to one another, the angle lying between 100° and 180°, wherein when said electrical conductors are in the mounted position, said two clamping screws that are screwed into the throughholes securely fasten the electrical conductors to said pipe shaped clamping body, by pushing with sufficient force the individual electrical conductors together and also against the wall of said clamping body on the opposite side of said throughholes such that the wires of the electrical conductors are not damaged or destroyed; and wherein both of the two clamping screws, on front peaks thereof, that contacts the electrical conductors, are rounded, wherein a radius of the rounded peak for the two clamping screws is 0.28 x D, D being the diameter of a threaded part of the two clamping screws. Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ducrot US 6,948,955 B2 Sept. 27, 2005 Stauch US 8,425,265 B2 Apr. 23, 2013 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ducrot and Stauch. Final Act. 2. OPINION Upon consideration of Appellant’s arguments in this appeal, we determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Likewise, it is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 4 Appellant’s principal argument is that there is no recognition that the radius of the rounded screw heads is a result effective variable, so there is no reason for one to optimize such a radius to the “0.28 x D, D being the diameter of a threaded part of the two clamping screws” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant contends that “the present applicant” discovered that “the rounding of the peak of the screw”2 to the recited radius is a “results effective variable” (Appeal Br. 13; emphasis omitted) to solve the problem of ensuring individual conductor wires are pushed compactly together without being damaged or destroyed (Appeal Br. 12). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As pointed out by the Examiner, both Ducrot and Stauch exemplify rounded screw heads useful for the same general purpose as Appellant’s, to connect and/or secure conductor cables (Ans. 5, 6). Appellant does not sufficiently dispute the Examiner’s finding that adjusting “the size and the 2 It is noted that there may be an apparent conflict or ambiguity between the claim which states “a radius of the rounded peak” and the Specification which describes “a rounded point 11” which may not be the peak; as depicted in Figure 6, point 11 as well as “radius R” appear to be offset from the peak (which appears to be flat in Fig. 6) (Spec. 7:10-17; Fig. 6). Albeit, compare to Spec. 4:30 to 5:1 which states “the rounding of the point of the clamping screws with a radius of .28 x D.” It is also noted that the correction to the Specification beginning on line 10 of page 7 filed May 15, 2017 appears to be incorrect as the conductor is not labeled 11. It is believed it was intended that “point 6” be changed to “point 11”, not “conductor 6” changed to “conductor 11”. It is also noted that Spec. 2 refers to US 6,338,658 B1 which appears to be an incorrect number as it does not correlate to the description of “a clamping screw” given in Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 2:29–31). Appellant describes this prior art clamping screw as being “on its end dull rounded slightly with a small radius” (Spec. 3:4–5). Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 5 angle of the screws in order to secure the cable inside the connector” is indeed “a common practice to one skilled in the art” (Ans. 4; no responsive brief was filed). It is also readily apparent to one of ordinary skill from the applied prior art that the orientation of the screws and their size may affect their holding ability. “A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well settled that, generally speaking, it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for result- effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range); see also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Appellant does not direct us to any evidence of criticality for the claimed radius of the rounded screw head (e.g., Spec. 7:12–17 discusses a broader range and then an advantageous single point of 0.28 x D, but discusses no particular significance or criticality of 0.28 x D). Further, as we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would have, within their level of skill, made the rounded screw heads at the recited radius, based on the combined teachings of the applied prior art. KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 6 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of “the inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ). However, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s position was adopted (that is, that there was no recognition that this was a result effective variable in the applied prior art), changing the size/radius of the rounded screw heads would have been prima facie obvious, considering their structural similarity as depicted in the applied prior art (e.g., it is readily apparent that rounded screw heads are known and may have a radius less than the diameter of the screw threads). It has been generally held that ordinarily changes in sizes or shapes of known elements are within the level of skill in that art, especially in the absence of unexpected results or criticality. Cf. Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 676 (CCPA 1966) (change in shape ordinarily prima facie obvious). It is well established that obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success; rather, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function is ordinarily obvious; further, the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” can be taken into Appeal 2020-004515 Application 15/213,868 7 account. KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 418. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Adjusting the size (radius relative to the screw thread diameter) of the known element of a rounded screw head for securing a conductor cable in a connector is considered within the ambit of inferences and creativity of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection on appeal. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6 103 Ducrot, Stauch 1, 2, 4–6 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED