CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 22, 20212021000764 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/903,184 02/23/2018 Bradley Jerome Blazer HI13-134A1 6648 21495 7590 10/22/2021 CORNING INCORPORATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1 CORNING, NY 14831 EXAMINER RADKOWSKI, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2021 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): usdocket@corning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRADLEY JEROME BLAZER, MICHAEL JOHN GIMBLET, JULIAN LATELLE GREENWOOD III, JASON CLAY LAIL, WARREN WELBORN MCALPINE, and ERIC JOHN MOZDY Appeal 2021-000764 Application 15/903,184 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, SHELDON M. MCGEE, and JANE E. INGLESE, 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 and 11–14. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 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. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000764 Application 15/903,184 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to optical communication cables having multiple armor segments surrounding one or more optical communication fibers. Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.). “The cable provides structure and protection for the optical fibers within the cable.” Spec. ¶ 2. The armor layer, or “reinforcement layer is formed from two pieces of material, the opposing lateral edges of each sheet of reinforcement material may be overlapped, coupled to or bonded together.” Id. ¶ 25. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An optical communication cable comprising: a cable jacket formed from a first material; a plurality of core elements located within the cable jacket; and an armor layer surrounding the plurality of core elements within the cable jacket, wherein the armor layer is a multi-piece layer comprising: a first armor segment extending a portion of the distance around the plurality of core elements, the first armor segment having a first lateral edge and an opposing second lateral edge; and a second armor segment extending a portion of the distance around the plurality of core elements, the second armor segment having a first lateral edge and an opposing second lateral edge; wherein the first lateral edge of the first armor segment is adjacent the first lateral edge of the second armor segment and the second lateral edge of the first armor segment is adjacent the second lateral edge of the second armor segment such that the combination of the first armor segment and the second armor segment completely surround the plurality of core elements. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000764 Application 15/903,184 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejects claims 1, 11, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood2 in view of Wambeke.3 Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over this combination of references, additionally relying on the disclosure of Okada.4 Id. at 6–7. The Examiner finds that Greenwood discloses an optical communication cable comprising a cable jacket, plurality of core elements, and an armor layer that completely surrounds the plurality of core elements. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner thus finds that Greenwood discloses the limitations of claim 1 except for the requirement that “the armor layer is a multi-piece layer,” and––by logical extension––the recited first and second armor segment configurations (e.g., “the first lateral edge of the first armor segment is adjacent the first lateral edge of the second armor segment and the second lateral edge of the first armor segment is adjacent the second lateral edge of the second armor segment”). To address the differences between Greenwood and claim 1, the Examiner turns to Wambeke, which the Examiner finds discloses “half-pipe channels 1 that join/overlap at 3/3A (locked by 4/7)” and states that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify Greenwood such that the armor layer is a multi-piece layer . . . because the resultant configuration would facilitate assembling protective structures.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Wambeke, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3).5 2 US 2011/0286706 A1, published November 24, 2011. 3 US 5,300,732, issued April 5, 1994. 4 US 2002/0141713 A1, published October 3, 2002. 5 In the Advisory Action dated September 19, 2019, the Examiner seemingly provided an alternative rationale to combine the teachings of Greenwood Appeal 2021-000764 Application 15/903,184 4 Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has not explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Wambeke’s disclosure to use multiple pieces of an armor layer to “facilitate assembling protective structures.” Appeal Br. 6. OPINION We agree with Appellant and reverse the rejections. On this record, the Examiner has not provided adequate evidence to support the proposition that Wambeke’s multi-piece arrangement would have facilitated assembly of an armor layer. The Examiner relies on Wambeke’s Abstract for support, but that disclosure appears silent regarding the proffered motivation. The Examiner’s statement in the Answer that “[o]ne skilled in the art would recognize that the two part layer of Wambeke may be easier to assemble around a cable” (Ans. 7) fares no better because it is likewise unsupported by a citation to factual evidence. Here, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner bears the initial burden of supporting the rejection with evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). The rejections on appeal are not supported by facts, but instead rely on speculative assumptions regarding the purported ease of cable assembly. For that reason, the rejections cannot be sustained. and Wambeke. See Adv. Act. 2 (Finding that Wambeke addresses the problem of “‘the formation of an environmental seal’” and that “[c]onsequently, it would have been obvious . . . to [modify] Greenwood to incorporate Wambeke’s particular moisture sealing features”). However, the Examiner expressly disavows this rationale in the Answer. Ans. 7. We, therefore, do not consider it. Appeal 2021-000764 Application 15/903,184 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11–12, 14 103 Greenwood, Wambeke 1, 11–12, 14 13 103 Greenwood, Wambeke, Okada 13 Overall Outcome 1, 11–14 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation