Qorvo US, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021002047 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 14/893,408 11/23/2015 John Mark Tischer 0468.000006US01 5220 146206 7590 03/28/2022 MRG/Qorvo c/o Mueting Raasch Group 111 Washington Ave. S., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 EXAMINER EOM, ROBERT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1797 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): ptodocketing@mrgs.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN MARK TISCHER, CHRISTOPHER JENNINGS MADSEN, and ROGER PAUL MANN Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qorvo US, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to: (i) an interconnect device comprising a printed circuit board (PCB) and (ii) a resonator sensor module comprising a module interface and a resonator electrically coupled to the module interface, wherein the module interface comprises a PCB. Claims 1, 15. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with the key limitations italicized for emphasis: 1. An interconnect device, comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising: a substrate forming a resiliently deflectable element, wherein the resiliently deflectable element comprises a peripheral portion of the substrate that comprises a slot formed in the substrate that defines the resiliently deflectable element; a conductive material disposed on the substrate; and an electrical contact disposed on the resiliently deflectable element and electrically coupled to the conductive material; and a connector comprising a connecting pin configured to electrically couple with the electrical contact of the resiliently deflectable element of the PCB and cause the resiliently deflectable element to deflect when the resiliently deflectable element contacts the connecting pin. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: I. Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Campini (US 6,935,868 B1, issued August 30, 2005) (Final Act. 4-5); Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 3 II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Campini in view of Owen (US 4,795,354, issued January 3, 1989) (Final Act. 7); III. Claims 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Campini in view of Olson (US 2009/0101274 A1, published April 23, 2009) (Final Act. 7-8); and IV. Claims 1-3 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sunshine (US 2002/0178789 A1, published December 5, 2002) in view of Campini (Final Act. 8-14). OPINION We address the claims separately to the extent they are so argued by Appellant. Rejections I-III With respect to these rejections, the dispositive issue on appeal2 is whether the Examiner’s finding that Campini discloses the claimed “resiliently deflectable element” is supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 4. Because that finding is not sufficiently supported, we do not sustain the rejections. 2 Appellant argues, inter alia, that “the Examiner has failed to provide any teaching in Campini . . . that describes that the alleged resiliently deflectable elements are indeed capable of flexing,” but rather Campini’s “alleged deflectable elements 110A-B do not deflect” and “remain in a common plane and in parallel alignment.” Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 4 We begin with claim construction. Our reviewing court instructs that [i]n claim construction, this court gives primacy to the language of the claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in construing patent claims before the PTO. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applying these principles, we first observe that independent claim 1 recites “a printed circuit board (PCB)” and contains a “wherein” clause which refers to where and how “the resiliently deflectable element” is formed and defined on the PCB’s substrate. Appeal Br. 18. Claim 1 also recites “a connector pin configured to . . . cause the resiliently deflectable element to deflect when the resiliently deflectable element contacts the connecting pin.” Id. Claim 1 as drafted does not permit construction of the limitation “resiliently deflectable,” however. We, therefore, turn to the Specification for guidance. The Specification discloses that the phrase ‘resiliently deflectable element’ refers to one or more elements formed by the substrate of the PCB that can be deflected one or more times by a connector to provide an electrical coupling between the PCB and the connector and return to their original configurations and/or shapes when the elements are no longer deflected by the connector. Id. at 6:7-11 (emphasis added). Therefore, based on the claim language, as well as the Specification, we construe the limitation “resiliently deflectable element” as covering an element that deflects upon contact with a connecting pin, but returns to the original configuration or shape when the element is no longer deflected by the pin. Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 5 Armed with that construction, we turn to the rejection and the prior art Campini reference relied on by the Examiner to evince the claimed “resiliently deflectable element,” as well as Appellant’s arguments. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Campini 4:63-5-14; Figs. 6, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b); Appeal Br. 8-10; Ans. 14-15; Reply Br. 2-6. In the rejection, the Examiner finds that PCB cards 802A and 802B correspond to the claimed substrate, which forms the claimed resiliently deflectable element. Final Act. 4; Campini Fig. 8a. The Examiner finds that Campini’s PCB card edges 110A and 110B correspond to the disputed resiliently deflectable elements. Final Act. 4; Campini Fig. 6, 8a. The Examiner finds that Campini’s connector 104 comprises connecting pins configured to cause PCB card edges 110A and 110B to deflect when these edges contact the connecting pins within connector 104. Final Act. 4; Campini Fig. 6, 8a, 10a. We find the Examiner’s citations insufficient to establish that Campini discloses connecting pins configured to cause PCB card edges 110A and 110B to deflect and then return to the original configuration or shape when these edges no longer contact the connecting pins. Indeed, Campini suggests in the relied-upon passages and elsewhere that any PCB deflection is undesirable. See Campini 5:1-11 (referring to Figure 6 and disclosing that accurate alignment “is accomplished via a sliding engagement between edges 606 of edge connector 110 with mating edges 608 formed on the inside of the connector slot 606 of full-height AMC connector 104” so that “[t]he tolerance between the mating parts is very tight to ensure high accuracy in the alignment of the mating electric traces.”); id. at 5:66-6:3 (disclosing that “excessive level of mechanical stress in the double-width Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 6 PCB card . . . and AMC connectors . . . could eventually damage one or more of the connectors [and the] PCB card.”); id. at 6:34-39 (disclosing that “a pair of width-adjustable stiffening mechanisms 806A and 806B . . . between single-width PCB cards 802A and 802B . . . stiffen[] the assembly and maintain[] the PCB card edge connectors 110A and 110B in a common plane an (sic, and) in parallel alignment.”). On this record, it is speculative to assume that Campini’s PCB card meets the requirement of being “resiliently deflectable” merely because Campini discloses mechanisms that: (i) facilitate the desirable movement of PCB cards 802A and 802B in the vertical direction and (ii) stiffen the PCB card assembly. Ans. 15 (citing Campini 8:1-8). Campini’s Figures 8a, 8b, and 11 show that the desired vertical movement is within the plane of the PCB cards, not perpendicular thereto. See also Reply Br. 5 (persuasively asserting that “the stiffening mechanisms 806A-B are required to keep two separate PCB cards in a plane,” but “would not . . . necessarily increase a stiffness of the material of the individual PCB cards.”). Thus, the Examiner’s finding regarding Campini’s PCB cards is based on speculation which cannot serve as a substitute for factual evidence. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies” in the cited references.). Because Rejections II and III also rely on the erroneous finding that Campini discloses a resiliently deflectable element meeting the requirements of independent claim 1, we do not sustain these rejections. Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 7 Rejection IV Claims 1 and 15 Relevant to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds that Sunshine discloses the claimed resiliently deflectable element. Final Act. 9, 12 (citing Sunshine Fig. 9A). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sunshine discloses “a substrate (see: socket 922) forming a resiliently deflectable element, wherein the resiliently deflectable element comprises a peripheral portion of the substrate (see: edge connector annotated “Element A” disposed at the outer edge of socket 922).” Final Act. 9, 12. Appellant argues that [t]he alleged resiliently deflectable element of Sunshine et al. (Element A), is not described in the reference as being capable of being deflected one or more times by a connector and returning to its original configuration and/or shape when no longer deflected by the connector as is required by independent claims 1 of 15. Appeal Br. 15. In response, the Examiner asserts that “all materials are capable of flexing/deflecting with varying degrees of force.” Ans. 16. The Examiner concludes that Sunshine’s edge connector Element A “is capable of resisting some degree of deflection” as it is inserted into socket 152. Id. We agree with Appellant and reverse this rejection. The Examiner points to no evidence to establish that Sunshine’s Element A deflects upon insertion into socket 152 and returns to the original configuration or shape when removed. Furthermore, the Examiner appears to rely on the same deficient teachings of Campini cited in support of Rejection I in concluding that Sunshine’s device, as-modified by Campini’s PCB, would have resulted Appeal 2021-002047 Application 14/893,408 8 in a “connector configured to deflect” Sunshine’s Element A “when inserted therein.” Ans. 16. Because the Examiner’s obviousness rejection lacks the requisite factual support, we reverse it. Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 7, 9 102(a)(1) Campini 1-3, 7, 9 4 103 Campini, Owen 4 5, 6, 8 103 Campini, Olson 5, 6, 8 1-3, 9-20 103 Sunshine, Campini 1-3, 9-20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED