Corning Optical Communications LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 15, 2020

15259746 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2020)

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.
15/259,746 09/08/2016 Anne Germaine Bringuier HI14-014 9639
21495 7590 06/15/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
RADKOWSKI, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNE GERMAINE BRINGUIER and
BRANDON ROBERT WILLIAMSON
Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
Technology Center 2800
Before JULIA HEANEY, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 8, 2016 (“Spec.”),
Final Office Action dated Feb. 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”), Appeal Brief dated
June 28, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 1, 2019
(“Ans.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Corning Optical
Communications LLC, the assignee of record. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a fiber optic cable having a dual layer
jacket surrounding and protecting core components of the cable. Spec. ¶ 5.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim:
1 A fiber optic cable, comprising:
a core comprising:
at least one optical fiber; and
one or more of the following:
a strength element, a tubular element, a binding element, a
water-blocking element, a flame-retardant element, armor, and
another optical fiber;
a jacket surrounding the core, the jacket comprising:
a base layer formed from a first composition, wherein the
first composition comprises polyethylene; and
a surface layer defining an exterior surface of the fiber
optic cable, wherein the surface layer has a thickness of at least
about 300 micrometers, wherein the surface layer is formed
from a second composition that differs from the first
composition, wherein the second composition comprises
polyethylene, wherein the second composition comprises one or
more additives comprising paracrystalline carbon, and wherein
the paracrystalline carbon is concentrated in the surface layer
such that the second composition has a percentage by volume
of the paracrystalline carbon that is at least ten times greater
than the percentage by volume thereof in the first composition;
and
an interface between the surface and base layers, the
interface cohesively bonding the surface and base layers to one
another at least in part due to molecular chain entanglement of
the polyethylene of the first and second compositions.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Risch US 6,210,802 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Davis US 2003/0228116 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Chung US 2009/0068453 A1 Mar. 12, 2009
Bambara WO 02/074843 A2 Sept. 26, 2002
V. M. Litvinov et al., Rubber-Filler Interactions and Network Structure in
Relation to Stress-Strain Behavior of Vulcanized, Carbon Black Filled
EPDM, Macromolecules, 44 (12) 4887–4900 (2011) (“Litvinov”).
P. Bindu and S. Thomas, Viscoelastic Behavior and Reinforcement
Mechanism in Rubber Nanocomposites in the Vicinity of Spherical
Nanoparticles, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 117 (41), 12632–
12648 (2013) (“Bindu”).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–6, 10–12, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Risch, Litvinov,
Bambara, and Chung. Final Act. 6.
2. Claims 7–9 and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Risch, Bambara, Chung, Davis,
and Bindu. Id. at 13.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Risch discloses cable 10 having buffer tubes
12 holding fibers 14 about central strength member 16 and confined by
extruded jacket 20 where the jacket includes nucleating agent carbon black,
which is a type of paracrystalline carbon. Final Act. 7 (citing Risch Fig. 1,
2:58–3:48). The Examiner further finds that Risch discloses using additives
such as carbon black “to predictably tailor, for example, ‘Young’s modulus,
Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
4
yield, tensile strength, compression resistance and dimensional stability.’”
Id. (citing Risch 3:20–49). The Examiner also finds that Litvinov discloses
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the use of carbon
black additives affects mechanical properties of a material. Id. at 8.
The Examiner acknowledges that Risch does not disclose that the
jacket includes a base layer of a first composition and a surface layer of a
second composition different from the first composition, but finds that
Bambara teaches that a laminate structure with a HDPE foamed sheet
including a core and skin surface layer on the core where the core and skin
surface layers have different compositions. Id. at 9 (citing Bambara Fig. 1,
Abs.). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to include a base layer with a first composition and a
surface layer with a different second composition in Risch’s jacket, in order
to optimize the jacket’s performance characteristics. Id.
The Examiner further finds that Risch, as modified by Bambara, does
not explicitly disclose that the interface of the jacket cohesively bonds the
surface and base layers to one another at least in part due to molecular chain
entanglement. Id. The Examiner finds that Chung discloses this feature. Id.
at 10 (citing Chung Abstract, claim 14). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to provide molecular chain entanglement in the
surface and base layers of the jacket in order to facilitate forming
impact-resistant structures. Id. at 10–11 (citing Chung ¶ 96).
Appellant argues that the portion of Risch that the Examiner relies
upon as teaching a nucleating agent to optimize a cable jacket relates to
Risch’s filler rods and “has nothing to do with cable jacket design.” Appeal
Br. 9 (citing Risch 3:20–21). The Examiner appears to admit this deficiency
but finds that Risch’s teachings “regarding the use of additives and the
Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
5
physical characteristics” is applicable to both cable jackets and filler rods
because Risch teaches polyethylene-containing polymers for both the cable
jackets and filler rods. Ans. 11.
Appellant’s argument persuasively identifies reversible error. The
findings underlying the determination of obviousness are based on
unfounded assumptions because the Examiner has not identified any
disclosure in Risch or any other reference which shows or suggests the use
of carbon black in a cable jacket. Rather, the evidence relied upon by the
Examiner relates to Risch’s filler rods. Further, the Examiner’s response
that Risch’s teaching regarding the use of additives would be applicable to
both polyethylene jackets and filler rods is also unsupported; the Examiner
cites no evidence to support this finding, and does not identify anything in
the prior art that suggests the desirability of additives in a cable jacket.
Accordingly, we reverse rejection of claim 1. We reverse the rejection of
dependent claims 2–6, 10–12, and 17–20 for the same reasons. Because we
find reversible error, we need not reach Appellant’s additional arguments for
reversal.
Rejection 2
The rejection of claims 7–9 and 13–16 is based on the same deficient
findings as discussed above for Rejection 1, and the Examiner does not rely
upon the additional references for any disclosure that remedies the
deficiencies in Rejection 1. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above,
we also reverse the rejections of claims 7–9 and 13–16.

Appeal 2019-004707
Application 15/259,746
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 10–12,
17–20
103 Risch, Litvinov
Bambara, Chung
1–6, 10–
12, 17–20
7–9, 13–16 103 Risch, Bambara,
Chung, Davis, Bindu
7–9, 13–16
Overall
Outcome:
1–20

REVERSED