The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAINER TOPP, ACHIM HENKEL,
and REINHARD MILICH
____________
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
Technology Center 2800
____________
Decided: April 30, 2007
____________
Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 14-21, the only claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a plug connector with two superimposed
connecting parts: a first connecting part only for the input terminals, and a
second connecting part only for the output terminals. In one embodiment,
the first connecting part includes a separate terminal connector strip for each
input terminal. The strip includes at least as many connecting points as there
are possible associated output terminals. Each output connection is
connected to the associated input connection via a connecting point on the
corresponding terminal connector strip. Such a construction, among other
things, reduces complexity of the connecting parts themselves thus reducing
manufacturing costs. 1 Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. A plug connector for a control device, comprising:
a plug input having at least two input connections;
a plug output having at least two output connections; and
at least one connecting part for interconnecting the at least two input
connections and the at least two output connections, the at least one
connecting part including a first connecting part and a second connecting
part for decoupling the plug input from the plug output, the first connecting
part including the at least two input connections and the second connecting
part including the at least two output connections, the first connecting part
and the second connecting part being arranged on top of one another so that
respective associated connections are connected to each other at an
intersection point by a contact region, wherein the first connecting part
includes a separate terminal connector strip for each of the at least two input
connections, which provides at least as many connecting points as there are
possible associated output connections, so that each of the at least two output
connections is connected to an associated input connection via a connecting
1
See generally Specification page 2, line 3 – page 3, line 19.
2
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
point on a respective terminal connector strip, and wherein each of the at
least two output connections on the second connecting part is conducted
only to the respective terminal connector strip of the associated input
connection.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Oka
US 6,635,824 B1
Oct. 21, 2003
(filed Jul. 20, 2000)
The Examiner’s rejection is as follows:
Claims 11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Oka or, in the alternative, under U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Oka. 2
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by or rendered obvious over the disclosure of Oka (Answer 34).
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants argue that Oka does not
disclose or suggest the following limitations: (1) decoupling the plug input
2
The Examiner withdrew rejections based on other prior art references,
specifically Onizuka and Kasai (Answer 3). Accordingly, those references
are not before us.
3
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
and the plug output; (2) the first connecting part including a separate
terminal connector strip for each of the at least two input connections; and
(3) connecting each of the at least two output connections to an associated
input connection via a connecting point on a respective terminal connector
strip, and each of the at least two output connections on the second
connecting part is conducted only to the respective terminal connector strip
of the associated input connection (Br. 7).
In this regard, Appellants contend that although points of conduction
amongst perpendicular bus bars may be selected for a desired application in
Oka, the reference nevertheless does not teach nor suggest that the
interconnected bus bars are isolated into input and output connections
respectively. Appellants note that selectively joining the perpendicular bus
bars in Oka is merely to create a connection structure and does not teach or
suggest isolating or decoupling the input connections from the output
connections as claimed (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that the device shown in Figs. 3B and 5A
would include an input and an output. The Examiner adds that Oka’s device
is essentially the same as the claimed invention that involves stacked
conductive strips that are conductively joined at crossover points with
connection regions at their ends (Answer 4-5).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
ISSUE
Have Appellants established that the Examiner erred in finding that
the junction connector structure of Oka anticipates the claims?
4
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
FINDINGS OF FACT
Oka discloses a junction connector with junction circuits including
multiple bus bar layers 14 and 16 separated by an insulating sheet 17. In one
embodiment, multiple bus bars 13 and 15 in the first and second bus bar
layers 14 and 16 are fitted into corresponding grooves 17a disposed on
opposite sides of the insulating sheet. End tabs 13a, 13b, 15a, and 15b are
provided on opposite ends of the bus bars 13 and 15.
Selected bus bars 13 and 15 are connected together at cross positions
P1-P6 through openings 17b in the insulating sheet. To this end, bus bars 13
are bent such that they contact bus bars 15. See Fig. 7. Both bus bars are
then joined by resistance welding or, alternatively, by fasteners (Oka, col. 3,
l. 64 – col. 4, l. 35; col. 5, ll. 64-67; Figs. 5A-7 and 13).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Oka fully meets all limitations of
independent claim 11. First, the scope and breadth of the claim language
simply does not preclude the end tabs 13a of the first bus bars 13 as
5
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
reasonably comprising the “plug input” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation. Likewise, the end tabs 15a of the second bus bars
15 reasonably comprise the “plug output.”
Also, the claimed “connecting part” is fully met by the two
perpendicular arrays of bus bars 16 and 14 with insulating sheet 17
therebetween. That is, the “first connecting part” is fully met by the array of
upper bus bars 14 (i.e., “terminal connector strips”) and the associated face
of insulating sheet 17 whose grooves 17a accommodate the upper bus bars.
Likewise, the “second connecting part” is fully met by the array of lower bus
bars 16 (i.e., “terminal connector strips”) and the associated face of
insulating sheet 17 whose grooves 17a accommodate the lower bus bars.
Selected bus bars within the array are connected together at
“connecting points” P1-P6 (Oka, col. 4, ll. 10-25; Figs. 5A-7). As shown in
Fig. 5B of Oka, two of the lower bus bar terminal strips 15 are each
connected solely to corresponding upper bus bar terminal strips 13 at
connecting points P3 and P4 respectively. In our view, this particular
connection fully meets the limitation calling for at least two output
connections to be connected to an associated input connection via a
connecting point on a respective terminal strip as claimed. Moreover, this
connection fully meets the limitation calling for each of the at least two
output connections on the second connecting part to be conducted only to
the respective terminal connector strip of the associated input connection as
claimed.
Lastly, we note that Oka’s second connecting part noted above is
capable of “decoupling the plug input from the plug output” as claimed
giving the term “decoupling” its broadest reasonable interpretation.
6
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
Significantly, we note that such decoupling could be achieved in Oka merely
by not connecting two upper and two lower terminal strips together.
Decoupling could also be achieved by merely disconnecting selected welded
or fastened bus bar connections at the connecting points. See Oka, col. 4, ll.
24-26 (noting that bus bars can be removed for unused portions in the
circuitry); see also Oka, col. 5, ll. 64-67 and Fig. 13 (noting that the upper
and lower bus bars can be joined by fasteners in lieu of welding). In short,
we see no reason why Oka’s second connecting part would not be at least
capable of “decoupling the plug input from the plug output” as claimed. The
limitation is therefore fully met by Oka.
For at least these reasons, we find claim 11 anticipated by Oka.
Accordingly, we need not reach the Examiner’s alternative obviousness
rejection of this claim. Moreover, since Appellants have not separately
argued the patentability of dependent claims 14-21, these claims fall with
independent claim 11. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the
Examiner erred in finding that the junction connector structure of Oka
anticipates the claims.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's anticipation rejection with respect
to all claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
11 and 14-21 is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2007-0955
Application 10/297,899
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tdl/gw
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
8