Ex Parte 6767247 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 7, 2012

95000119 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/000,119 01/13/2006 6767247 205_193 8368
26371 7590 03/08/2012
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-5306
EXAMINER
RUBIN, MARGARET R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC.
(DOING BUSINESS AS PPC, INC.)
Requester, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant

v.

Patent of BELDEN INC.
Patent Owner, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent
____________

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
2
Belden, Inc. (hereinafter “Patent Owner”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§
134(b) and 315(a)(1) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-3 and
11 in the reexamination of United States Patent 6,767,247 B2 (hereinafter
“the ’247 Patent”).1, 2 John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (hereinafter
“Requester”) is a party to the Patent Owner’s appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
315(b)(2).3
The Requester cross-appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b)(1)
from the Examiner’s refusal to enter certain proposed rejections against
claims 1-11.4 The Patent Owner is a party to this cross-appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 315(a)(2).5
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134, and 315.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The current reexamination of the ’247 Patent was initiated based on a
Request for Reexamination filed on January 13, 2006 (Order Granting

1 The ‘247 Patent issued to Julio F. Rodrigues, Salvatore J. Abbruzzese, and
Brian S. Welborn on July 27, 2004, based on Application 10/359,498 filed
on February 6, 2003.
2 See the Patent Owner’s Corrected Appeal Brief filed on July 10, 2009
(hereinafter “PO App. Br.”); see the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 13,
2010, incorporating by reference the Right of Appeal Notice mailed
September 26, 2008 (hereinafter “RAN”).
3 See the Requester’s Respondent Brief filed on August 20, 2010
(hereinafter “Req. Resp. Br.”).
4 See the Requester’s Cross-Appeal Brief filed June 18, 2010 (hereinafter
“Req. Cr. App. Br.”); see RAN.
5 See the Patent Owner’s Respondent Brief filed August 26, 2010
(hereinafter “PO Resp. Br.”).
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
3
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination mailed March 9, 2006). We
understand that the ’247 Patent is the subject of a civil action captioned
Thomas & Betts Int’l, Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., 2:05-cv-
2333 (W.D. Tenn.). According to the Patent Owner, the district court
proceeding has been stayed pending the outcomes of the current
reexamination and Reexamination Control 95/001,112, which we decide
concurrently with the current appeal (hereinafter “’112 Reexamination,” PO
App. Br. 3; Req. Resp. Br. 2). The ’247 Patent is a continuation of United
States Patent 6,530,807 B2, which is the subject of the ’112 Reexamination.
We heard oral arguments from both parties on October 5, 2011. A
transcript is unavailable.
The ’247 Patent states that the invention relates to a connector for
terminating coaxial cable (col. 1, ll. 13-14). In particular, the ’247 Patent
states that the connector includes a locking sleeve that provides detachable,
re-attachable engagement with an insertion end of a connector body for
securing the cable to the connector body (col. 2, ll. 39-41). According to the
’247 Patent, the locking sleeve is movable from a first position loosely
retaining the cable in the connector body to a second position locking the
cable to the connector body, which facilitates installation of the cable (col. 1,
l. 66 to col. 2, l. 44).
Claims 1-4 and 11 on appeal read as follows (Claims App’x, PO App.
Br. 19-21; underlined text indicate insertions relative to the original patent):
1. A connector for terminating an end of a coaxial cable
comprising:
a connector body having a cable receiving end for
accommodating said end of said cable; and
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
4
a locking sleeve attached to said cable receiving end of
said body and being detachable and reattachable thereto to
define an attached position and a detached position, said
locking sleeve receiving said cable end in either of said attached
or detached positions and being movable with respect to said
connector body for locking said cable to said connector body,
said locking sleeve being movable with respect to said body
from a first position retaining said cable end to a second
position inseparably locking said cable to said body;
wherein said connector body and locking sleeve include
cooperative detent structure for permitting detachment and
reattachment of said connector body and said locking sleeve,
said detent structure being in the form of a radially extending
rib and an annular groove, the rib being resilient in the groove
in said first position.

2. A connector of claim 1, wherein said locking sleeve is
coupled to said body in said second position.

3. A connector of claim 2 wherein said connector body
includes said annular rib; and said locking sleeve includes said
annular groove.

4. A connector of claim 3 wherein said annular groove
of said locking sleeve is defined between a pair of spaced apart
radially outwardly extending sleeve rings.

11. A connector of claim 1 wherein said cooperative
detent structure of said locking sleeve is at the forward end
thereof.

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
5
The Patent Owner’s Appeal
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability (RAN 5):
Szegda 5,470,257 Nov. 28, 1995
(hereinafter “Szegda ’257”)
Szegda 5,632,651 May 27, 1997
(hereinafter “Szegda ’651”)
Chishima 5,690,510 Nov. 25, 1997

The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 11 as follows (RAN 6-7, 16-
21):
I. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement;
II. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite;
III. Claims 1-3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Szegda ’257 or Szegda ’651
(collectively “Szegda patents”); and
IV. Claims 1 and 2 provisionally under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim
21 of Application 11/657,868 filed January 25, 2007.6

6 Application 11/657,868 matured into United States Patent 7,458,849 B2
(hereinafter “’849 Patent”), which issued to the same inventive entity as the
’247 Patent on December 2, 2008, (PO App. Br. 17). Also, it appears that
claim 21 issued as claim 6.
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
6
The Requester’s Appeal
The Requester relies on the following prior art references as further
evidence of unpatentability (Req. Cr. App. Br. 6):
Ming-Hwa 5,024,606 June 18, 1991
Burris 5,879,191 Mar. 9, 1999
Tallis 6,089,912 July 18, 2000
Montena 6,558,194 B2 May 6, 2003
Tallis WO 98/18179 Apr. 30, 1998
(hereinafter “WO ’179”)

The Examiner appears to7 have determined that claims 1-11 are
patentable with respect to the following proposed grounds (Req. Cr. App.
Br. 6):
V. Claims 1-3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by either of the Szegda patents;
VI. Claims 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of either of the Szegda
patents and Burris;
VII. Claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over the combined
teaching of either of the Szegda patents and Burris, and

7 Neither the Examiner’s Answer nor the Right of Appeal Notice includes a
separate discussion regarding the proposed rejections forming the basis for
the Requester’s Cross-Appeal. Nevertheless, the Examiner’s error is
harmless. Because none of the rejections on cross-appeal have been
adopted, we presume that any pertinent analyses as set forth in the RAN
with respect to the Patent Owner’s appeal and the Action Closing
Prosecution mailed February 21, 2008, (hereinafter “ACP”) have been
carried over into the Answer.
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
7
in further combination with Ming-Hwa, Tallis, or WO
’179;
VIII. Claims 1-3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Montena;
IX. Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings Montena and either of the
Szegda patents;
X. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Burris; and
XI. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Montena and Burris.

PART I – THE PATENT OWNER’S APPEAL
REJECTION I – LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (CLAIM 11)
ISSUE
The Examiner found that the disclosure of the ’247 Patent, as
originally filed, “does not support [the] recitation of ‘said cooperative detent
structure of said locking sleeve’ as being located, in its totality, at the
forward end” (RAN 16). Specifically, the Examiner found that, in the
original disclosure, “only a portion of the cooperative detent structure of said
locking sleeve is located at the forward end with a remaining portion located
at the mid-region of the locking sleeve . . . .” (id.).
The Requester asserts that “as written, claim 11 is attempting to claim
either a connector in which the entire cooperative detent structure of the
locking sleeve, including the end ring 54, is located at the forward end of the
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
8
locking sleeve, or a connector in which the cooperative detent structure
excludes end ring 54” (Req. Resp. Br. 14). According to the Requester,
neither of these is supported by the original disclosure of the ’247 Patent
(id.).
The Patent Owner contends that the disclosure at column 3, lines 55-
57 of the ’247 provides support for the claimed subject matter including the
disputed limitation (PO App. Br. 15). While acknowledging that “[t]he
Examiner is correct in noting that the cooperative detent structure of the
locking sleeve further includes structure at the rearward end of the sleeve,”
the Patent Owner asserts that “claim 11 does not preclude such a possibility”
(id.).
Thus, the dispositive issue arising from these contentions is:
(1) Does claim 11 including the disputed claim limitation “wherein
said cooperative detent structure of said locking sleeve is at the forward end”
require that the cooperative detent structure is entirely at the forward end in
direct conflict with the original disclosure, thus violating the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1?

App
Reex
Paten

eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24
1. Fi
Fi
co
ac
ll.
2. Th
sl
co
at
(e
3. Th
str
lo
4. C
cu
09783
Control 9
7 B2
F
gure 1 of t
gure 1 abo
nnector bo
commoda
25-33).
e ’247 Pa
eeve 14 an
operative
tachable c
mphasis a
e ’247 Pa
ucture als
cking slee
laim 11 is
rrent reex
5/000,119
INDINGS
he ’247 Pa
ve shows,
dy 12 pro
ting a coax
tent explai
d the recei
detent stru
onnection
dded; col.
tent furthe
o includes
ve 14 (col
a new clai
amination

9
OF FACT
tent is rep
inter alia
vided with
ial cable a
ns that “th
ving end 2
cture whic
of locking
3, ll. 54-59
r explains
end ring 5
. 5, ll. 10-1
m added d
(Amendm
(“FF”)
roduced b
, a connect
a collar 1
nd a locki
e forward
4 of colla
h allows f
sleeve 14
).
that the co
4 adjacen
2).
uring pros
ent filed A
elow:
or 10 incl
6 for
ng sleeve
end 36 of
r 16 includ
or the deta
to body 12
operative
t rearward
ecution of
ugust 4, 2
uding a
14 (col. 3,
locking
e
chable, re
”
detent
end 34 of
the
006).

-
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
10

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“The purpose of the written description requirement is to prevent an
applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did not; the
applicant for a patent is therefore required to ‘recount his invention in such
detail [in the originally filed specification] that his future claims can be
determined to be encompassed within his original creation.’” Amgen Inc. v.
Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that the entire disclosure of Application 10/359,498,
which matured into the ’247 Patent, is coextensive with the disclosure of the
’247 Patent as issued. Therefore, for simplicity, we cite to the ’247 Patent
when referring to the original disclosure of the ’247 Patent.
The Patent Owner argues that “claim 11 would not preclude
consideration of structure not at the forward end of the locking sleeve” (PO
App. Br. 15). We disagree. By reciting that the “cooperative detent
structure of said locking sleeve is at the forward end thereof” (emphasis
added), claim 11 forecloses any possibility that the cooperative detent
structure (or any part thereof) “is at” any other location of the locking
sleeve.
By contrast, the original disclosure of the ’247 Patent does not include
a description of an embodiment where the “cooperative detent structure of
said locking sleeve is at the forward end thereof” (emphasis added), as
recited in newly presented claim 11 (FF 4). Contrary to the language of new
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
11
claim 11, the original disclosure of the ‘247 Patent plainly discloses that the
cooperative detent structure of the locking sleeve not only includes structure
at the forward end of the locking sleeve (FF 2), but also additional structure
at a location adjacent the rearward end 34 in the form of end ring 54 (FF 3).
The Patent Owner admits as much (App. Br. 15).
The Patent Owner appears to be arguing that the claim finds support
in the disclosure at, for example, column 3, lines 55-57 of the ’247 Patent,
which states that “the forward end 36 of locking sleeve 14 . . . include[s]
cooperative detent structure” (App. Br. 15; FF 2). At first glance, the Patent
Owner’s argument might seem meritorious. But as aptly pointed out by the
Examiner, the relied-upon “text pointed out by [the] Patent Owner does not
exclude ring 54 from the cooperative detent structure” (RAN 17) or
otherwise indicate all the elements of the cooperative detent structure are
located at the forward end 36. When the relied-upon disclosure at column 3,
lines 55-57 is read in proper context of the entire disclosure of the ’247
Patent, one skilled in the relevant art would have understood that the original
disclosure is limited to devices where a part of the cooperative detent
structure (in the form of end ring 54) is located at a position other than the
forward end (i.e., adjacent the rearward end 34 of locking sleeve 14 (FF 1,
3). Thus, we find that claim 11 is inconsistent with the original disclosure,
and hence fails to comply with the written description requirement. Gentry
Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (patent
claims directed to a sectional sofa found invalid for violating the written
description requirement because they did not limit the location of the
reclining controls to the console area in direct conflict with the original
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
12
disclosure, which identified the console as the only possible location of the
controls).
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as
violating the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.

REJECTION II – INDEFINITENESS (CLAIM 11)
ISSUE
The Examiner asserts that claim 11 is indefinite because it “limits [the
cooperative detent structure] to elements located at the forward end of the
locking sleeve while the base patent specification expressly states that the
cooperative detent structure of the locking sleeve includes ring 54, which is
clearly not at the forward end of the locking sleeve” (RAN 19). The
Requester agrees with the Examiner (Req. Resp. Br. 15).
The Patent Owner contends that “claim 11 may be understood by one
skilled in the art not to be limited in the manner suggested by the Examiner”
and, “[a]s such, claim 11 particularly points [out] and distinctly claims
subject matter which the [inventors] regard as the invention inasmuch as the
forward end of the locking sleeve includes components forming the
cooperative detent structure thereof” (PO App. Br. 17).
Thus, the legal issue raised by the Examiner is:
(2) Does a claim violate 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite merely
because its scope is inconsistent with the original disclosure, i.e., it violates
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as lacking sufficient written description in the original
disclosure?

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
13
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

ANALYSIS
We cannot affirm this rejection. In Rejection I, the Examiner had no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of newly presented claim 11 to be inclusive
of subject matter outside the scope of the original disclosure. See, e.g., page
18 of the RAN, where the Examiner stated: “[B]y locating the cooperative
detent structure in a position that excludes end ring 54, claim 11 redraws the
metes and bounds of the cooperative detent structure in a manner that is not
supported by the [original disclosure].” In direct conflict with the position
taken in Rejection I, the Examiner appears to be concluding that the scope of
claim 11 is not clear because it is inconsistent with the original disclosure –
i.e., it lacks adequate written description (RAN 19). But the Examiner has
not directed us to any controlling authority that states that a claim in
violation of the written description requirement as inconsistent with the
original disclosure is also necessarily indefinite.
The cases cited by the Examiner as controlling precedents (RAN 19)
are inapposite because the court in each instance did not base the
indefiniteness conclusion on any failure to comply with the written
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
14
description requirement. Indeed, both precedents clearly indicate that the
indefiniteness rulings were not predicated on a finding that the claimed
subject matter lacked support in the original disclosure. In re Cohn, 438
F.2d 989, 999 (CCPA 1971) (“We might find appellant’s arguments to be
convincing if the sole issue were whether the instant claims were adequately
supported under the requirements of the first paragraph. However, we
cannot even reach that issue since we are not satisfied that these claims
comply with the second paragraph of §112.”); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 1381 (CCPA 1970) (“[The examiner] seems to question whether
certain claims, or certain recitations therein, are supported by the disclosure
. . . Nevertheless, it is clear that the examiner and board considered all the
claims to be indefinite and that they expressly relied only on the second
paragraph of section 112 as grounds for rejection.”).
For these reasons, we find that the Examiner failed to make out a
prima facie case of indefiniteness.

REJECTION III – DOUBLE PATENTING (CLAIMS 1 & 2)
The Patent Owner does not contest the Examiner’s rejection on the
merits (PO App. Br. 17). Rather, the Patent Owner’s states: “Now that the
’868 application has issued and assuming that the Examiner replaces the
provisional rejection with an actual rejection based on the issued patent, the
Appellant is prepared to respond to a double patenting rejection by filing a
Terminal Disclaimer . . . .” ( id. at 17-18).
Thus, the issue is:
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
15
(3) Does an offer to file a terminal disclaimer obviate an
obviousness-type double patenting rejection?
The Patent Owner’s mere offer to file a terminal disclaimer is
ineffective to obviate the Examiner’s double patenting rejection. Because
the Patent Owner failed to direct our attention to any timely-filed terminal
disclaimer, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claim 21 of the ’868 Application, which is now claim 6 of United States
Patent 7,458,849 B2.

REJECTION IV – OBVIOUSNESS (CLAIMS 1-3 & 11)
ISSUE
The Examiner’s Position:
Regarding the disputed claim limitations (“a locking sleeve attached
to said cable receiving end of said body and being detachable and
reattachable thereto to define an attached position and a detached position”
and “said locking sleeve being movable with respect to said body from a
first position retaining said cable end to a second position inseparably
locking said cable to said body,” both as recited in claim 1), the Examiner
stated (RAN 24-25):
[A] rib and groove engagement that includes the abutment of
perpendicular rear surfaces provides for a permanent
connection between the connector body and the locking sleeve
(termed an “inseparably” locking sleeve in the parent
application) and a sloped connection provides for the possibility
of detaching the same.
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
16
The Examiner asserted that the Patent Owner did not dispute the
finding that the Szegda patents describe: (1) an embodiment in which
elements 50a and 50b both have perpendicular rear faces (“permutation 1”);
and (2) an embodiment in which elements 50a and 50b, as shown in Figures
1-5, both have oppositely inclined rear surfaces to facilitate disassembly of
the locking member from the connector body (“permutation 2”) (RAN 24,
26). Based on the Examiner’s claim construction above, the Examiner then
asserted that claim 1 would encompass a modification of Szegda’s cable
connector in which element 50b has a perpendicular rear face but element
50a has an oppositely inclined rear face (id. at 24, 30; “permutation 4”).
Specifically, the Examiner stated: “To produce the invention of claim
1, permutation 2 of the Szegda patents must be modified, in the manner of
permutation 1, such that 50b possesses a perpendicular rear face (which
transforms permutation 2 to permutation 4.)” (RAN 30). According to the
Examiner, “[s]ince [the] Patent Owner admitted that the Szegda patents
teach an arrangement where both 50a and 50b possess perpendicular rear
faces and an arrangement where both 50a and 50b possess oppositely
inclined rear faces, the modification proposed herein simply incorporates
one rib from each of two fully supported embodiments of the Szegda
patents” (RAN 30). In support of the obviousness conclusion, the Examiner
relied on the disclosure in the Szegda patents that a second clamped position
may be provided with greater holding power, albeit in the context of
shoulder 50b having an increased radial projection relative to that of
shoulder 50a (id. at 31). The Examiner also found that the Szegda patents
teach perpendicular rear faces on shoulders 50a and 50b as an alternative
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
17
way to improve securement between the shoulders and the groove 52 (id. at
32). The Examiner concluded that “[s]ince [each of] the Szegda patents . . .
explicitly suggests making the connection of rib 50b in groove 52 more
resistant to separation than the connection of rib 50a in groove 52, Szegda
provides both ample motivation and a very strong suggestion to provide 50b
with a perpendicular rear face and 50a with an oppositely inclined rear face”
(id. at 32). That modification, according to the Examiner, “rearranges the
elements [of the prior art] in a manner that yields predictable results” (RAN
33).

The Requester’s Position:
The Requester asserts that “[t]aken together, the teachings of [the
Szegda patents at column 5, lines 38-56] include the four permutations of the
arrangements of the shoulders identified by the Examiner” (Req. Resp. Br.
8).

The Patent Owner’s Position:
The Patent Owner argues that “while permutations 1 and 2 are
disclosed in the Szegda patents, permutations 3 and 4 are not” (PO App. Br.
10). According to the Patent Owner, “the Szegda patents fail to disclose or
suggest or provide any reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosed connector such that the
locking sleeve is detachable from and reattachable to the connector body”
(PO App. Br. 11-12). Additionally, the Patent Owner contends that the
claimed connector provides benefits by “allowing the installer of the cable to
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
18
more clearly view the interior of the connector body to assure proper
insertion,” which “is made possible by providing a connector with structure
that allows the locking sleeve to be detachable from and reattachable to the
connector body and subsequent movement of the locking sleeve to render it
inseparably coupled to the connector body thereby locking the cable to the
connector” and that “the Examiner has cited no prior art reference or
combination of references which either identifies the problem or provides
the solution” (PO App. Br. 12-14).
Therefore, the dispositive issue arising from these contentions is:
(4) Did the Examiner articulate sufficient reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the conclusion that one ordinary skill in the
art would have been prompted to modify Szegda’s specifically disclosed
embodiments such that element 50a has an oppositely inclined rear surface
while element 50b has a perpendicular rear face (“permutation 4”), thus
arriving at a cable connector encompassed by claim 1?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
5. Figures 4-6 of the ’247 Patent under reexamination are
reproduced below:
App
Reex
Paten

eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24
Fi
en
14
fr
th
po
po
co
6. Th
“[
14
lo
7. Th
ac
09783
Control 9
7 B2
gures 4-6
gagement
, where lo
om a first p
e cable wi
sition as s
sition as s
nnector bo
e ’247 Pa
d]ue to the
, the ring
ckingly re
e ’247 Pa
commoda
5/000,119
above dep
between t
cking slee
osition sh
thin conne
hown in F
hown in F
dy 12 (co
tent explai
resilient n
48 will rid
sident with
tent states
ted in coll

19
ict enlarge
he connec
ve 14 is ax
own in Fi
ctor body
igure 5, to
igure 6, w
l. 3, ll. 10-
ns that, in
ature of m
e over rib
in groove
that “[w]h
ar 16 by en
d sectiona
tor body 1
ially mov
gure 4, wh
12, throug
a more fo
hich secur
11, 59-65)
the first p
aterial for
40 and the
46” (col.
ile the loc
gagement
l showing
2 and lock
eable towa
ich loosely
h an interm
rward seco
es the cab
.
osition (Fi
ming lock
rib 40 wi
4, ll. 40-44
king sleev
between r
s of the
ing sleeve
rds nut 18
retains
ediate
nd
le within
gure 4),
ing sleeve
ll become
).
e is
ib 40 in

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
20
groove 46, locking sleeve 40 may be detachably removed from
locking sleeve 14” (col. 4, ll. 45-47).
8. Further, the ’247 Patent states that the cooperative detent
structure includes a radially outwardly extending end ring 54,
which upon continued coaxial movement of the locking sleeve
14 into the connector body 12 as shown in Figure 6, “engages
and rides over rib 40 of collar 16 to define the second position
which locks [the] cable to the connector body” (col. 5, ll. 10-
15).
9. The ’247 Patent describes certain advantages of the invention as
follows (col. 6, ll. 13-33):
In certain installation settings, the installer may not
have clear and convenient access when terminating
cable 60. Moreover, insertion may be rendered
difficult by poor cable preparation, which may
result in a frayed end. Therefore, it may be
difficult for the installer to blindly insert the cable
60 through the locking sleeve 14 and into
connector body 12. In such situations, the present
invention contemplates the ability to detachably
remove locking sleeve 14 from connector body 12
so that the cable may be directly inserted to
receiving end 24 of collar 16. In these situations,
locking sleeve 14 is detachably removed from
collar 16 in a manner facilitated as above
described. The locking sleeve is then slipped over
cable 60 and moved to a convenient position along
the cable length. The end of cable 60 may then be
inserted directly into the rearward end 34 of collar
16 to easily assure that extension 30 of post 20 is
inserted between insulator 64 and shield 66.
Thereafter, the locking sleeve 14 may be brought
App
Reex
Paten

eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24

10. Fi

09783
Control 9
7 B2
up alo
lockin
rearw
gures 1-5
5/000,119
ng the cab
g sleeve 1
ard end 34
of the Szeg

21
le and the
4 may be
of collar
da patent
forward e
inserted in
16.
s are repro
nd 36 of
to the
duced bel

ow:

App
Reex
Paten

eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24
Fi
en
co
ac
of
sh
in
Fi
l.
11. Th
pr
w
dr
09783
Control 9
7 B2
gures 1-5
d connect
nnector bo
commoda
the lockin
own in Fig
Figure 5,
gure 4 (Sz
12; col. 3,
e Szegda
oblem of p
herein “the
opped or o
5/000,119
of the Szeg
or includin
dy 22 inte
ting limite
g member
ure 1, and
through an
egda ’257
ll. 46-48;
patents sta
rior art de
outer slee
therwise b

22
da patent
g, inter al
grally cou
d axial mo
between a
a second
intermed
at col. 2, l
col. 4, ll. 4
te that the
vices havi
ve compo
ecoming m
s above de
ia, a locki
pled in a m
vement of
first “ope
“clamped
iate positio
l. 34-38; c
5-62).
disclosed
ng detach
nents are p
isplaced
pict a coax
ng membe
anner
the axial
n” positio
” position,
n, as show
ol. 2, l. 66
connector
ed outer sl
rone to b
or lost, pa
ial cable
r 26 and a
movement
n, as
as shown
n in
to col. 3,
s solve the
eeves,
eing
rticularly,

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
23
as is often the case, when an installation is being made outdoors
under less than ideal weather conditions” (Szegda ’257 at col. 1,
ll. 47-55).
12. The Szegda patents teach that the coupling between the locking
member 26 and the connector body 22 is facilitated by an
engagement means that “preferably comprises first and second
axially spaced radially protruding circular shoulders 50a, 50b
on the locking member 26, each shoulder being configured and
dimensioned to coact in a snap engagement with an internal
groove 52 at the rear end of the outer collar 30” (Szegda ’257 at
col. 4, ll. 11-22).
13. The Szegda patents teach that, as best seen in Figure 3, “the
shoulders 50a, 50b protrude from the surface of the locking
member by a radial distance ‘d’, and are each provided with an
inclined ramp-like front face 54 and a generally perpendicular
rear face 56” (Szegda ’257 at col. 4, ll. 23-26).
14. According to the Szegda patents, “[t]he front faces 54
accommodate movement of the shoulders out of groove 52 in a
forward axial direction (arrow ‘F’ in FIG. 3), whereas the rear
faces 56 resist movement of the shoulders out of the groove 52
in a rearward axial direction (arrow ‘R’ in FIG. 3)” (Szegda
’257 at col. 4, ll. 27-31).
15. The Szegda patents indicate that, in Figure 4, cable 12 is
positioned in locking member 26 and that “the latter [is] held in
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
24
that position by the snap engagement of shoulder 50a in groove
52” (Szegda ’257 at col. 4, ll. 45-51).
16. According to the Szegda patents, “[i]n all cases, the coaction of
shoulder 50a with groove 52 serves to retain the connector
body and locking member in an assembled state during storage,
handling, and installation on a cable end” and that “[t]his
eliminates any danger of the locking member being dropped or
otherwise mishandled during assembly” (Szegda ’257 at col. 5,
ll. 37-43; emphasis added).
17. The Szegda patents further teach that “[f]inal locking in the
clamped position occurs when the shoulder 50b coacts in
snapped engagement with the groove 52” (Szegda ’257 at col.
4, ll. 60-62; col. 5, ll. 43-44).
18. The Szegda patents disclose modifications of the disclosed
embodiments as follows (Szegda ’257 at col. 5, ll. 44-55;
emphasis added):
In light of the foregoing, it will now be
appreciated by those skilled in the art that
modifications may be made to the disclosed
embodiments without departing from the spirit and
scope of the invention as defined by the appended
claims. For example, the extent of radial
protrusion “d” of shoulder 50b can be increased
as compared to that of shoulder 50a, thus
providing greater holding power in the second
clamped position. Also, the shoulders 50a, 50b
can be provided with oppositely inclined surfaces,
thus making it easier to disassemble the locking
member from the connector body. The design of
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
25
the fastener 24 can also be changed to suit
differing applications.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida
v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).

ANALYSIS
The Patent Owner has argued claims 1-3 and 11 together (PO App.
Br. 7). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1 in deciding the
appeal as to these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
As a preliminary matter, we address the level of ordinary skill in the
art. Our reviewing court has previously approved the Board’s approach that
the level of ordinary skill in the art is best determined by the references of
record, and therefore we focus primarily on the teachings of the prior art
references in resolving the level of skill in the art, as the Examiner and the
parties have done so here. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
1995).
We find no reversible error in the Examiner’s well-stated reasons in
support of the rejection. We start with the Examiner’s interpretation of the
disputed limitations of claim 1 (“a locking sleeve attached to said cable
receiving end of said body and being detachable and reattachable thereto”
and “said locking sleeve being movable with respect to said body from a
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
26
first position retaining said cable end to a second position inseparably
locking said cable to said body”). After considering the drawings and the
specification of the ’247 Patent under reexamination (FF 5-8), the Examiner
concluded that “a rib and groove engagement that includes the abutment of
perpendicular rear surfaces provides for a permanent connection between the
connector body and the locking sleeve (termed an ‘inseparably’ locking
sleeve in the parent application) and a sloped connection provides for the
possibility of detaching the same” (RAN 24-25). Thus, under the
Examiner’s construction, claim 1 reads on a cable connector in which the
forward ring (or shoulder) on the locking sleeve (or locking member) has
oppositely inclined faces and a rearward ring (or shoulder) has an inclined
front face and a perpendicular rear face sufficient to provide inseparable
locking. We agree with the Examiner’s reasonable claim construction,
which the Patent Owner has not successfully rebutted.
Finding no error in the Examiner’s construction of the disputed claim
limitations, we next consider whether the Examiner has identified a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
prior art elements in the manner claimed. It is undisputed that the Szegda
patents describe a cable connector with either: (i) both shoulders 50a and
50b having perpendicular rear faces (“permutation 1”); or (ii) both shoulders
50a and 50b having oppositely inclined rear faces (“permutation 2”) (FF 10,
12-14, 18; RAN 24; PO App. Br. 10). Because shoulders 50a and 50b of
Szegda’s embodiment identified by the Examiner as “permutation 2” have
oppositely inclined rear faces as in the invention recited in claim 1 (FF 5-7)
and Szegda explicitly discloses that the oppositely inclined surfaces “mak[e]
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
27
it easier to disassemble the locking member from the connector body” (FF
18; see also FF 10, 12, 15, 16), the prior art device would reasonably appear
to be “detachable and reattachable” to the connector body, as required by
claim 1. The Patent Owner has not directed us to evidence to the contrary.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Thus, Szegda’s disclosed embodiment identified as “permutation 2”
differs from the subject matter of claim 1 only in that shoulder 50b (i.e., the
rearward shoulder) does not have a perpendicular rear face sufficiently
configured to engage locking member 26 with connector body 22 in “a
second position inseparably locking said cable to said body,” as recited in
claim 1. The Examiner correctly found, however, that Szegda teaches that
“[f]or example, the extent of radial protrusion ‘d’ of shoulder 50b can be
increased as compared to that shoulder 50a, thus providing greater holding
in the second clamped position” (RAN 31-32; FF 18). Upon considering
this disclosure together with Szegda’s teaching that “shoulder 50b coacts
with groove 52 to retain the locking member in its final clamped position”
(emphasis added; FF 17, col. 5, ll. 43-44), a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have reasonably understood that it would be desirable to provide a
second locking position that is more resistant to separation than the first
locking position, including resistance to an extent that shoulder 50b
“inseparably” locks the locking member to connector body, as required by
claim 1. To achieve this desired result, the person of ordinary skill in the art
would not only have considered Szegda’s teaching to increase the height of
shoulder 50b, but also Szegda’s explicit teaching that a perpendicular rear
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
28
face “resist[s] movement of the shoulders out of the groove 52 in a rearward
axial direction (arrow ‘R’ in FIG. 3)” (FF 13, 14).
Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon
considering Szegda’s teachings as a whole, would have found it obvious to
modify shoulder 50b of Szegda’s “permutation 2” to have a sufficiently
configured perpendicular rear face (i.e., a perpendicular rear face of
sufficient strength and height) in order to obtain the expected result of
inseparable locking in a final clamped position, thus arriving at a device
encompassed by claim 1. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We find no persuasive merit in the Patent Owner’s argument that the
“Examiner has cited no prior art reference . . . which either identifies the
problem or provides the solution” contemplated by the inventors (PO App.
Br. 13-14). Contrary to the Patent Owner’s belief, Szegda addresses the
same or similar problem as the inventors because Szegda is also concerned
with facilitating ease of cable installation (FF 9, 11). Moreover, the
Supreme Court of the United States disapproved an approach that “look[s]
only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Rather, the Court instructed that “any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. See also In
re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the reason or motivation
provided in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be the
same as that of the inventors to establish obviousness).
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
29
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3 and 11 as unpatentable over Szegda ’257 or
Szegda ’651.

PART II – THE REQUESTER’S CROSS-APPEAL
PROPOSED REJECTION V – ANTICIPATION (CLAIMS 1-3 & 11)
In its brief, the Requester argues that the addition of the “inseparably”
limitation in claim 1 violates the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (Req. Cr. App. 12-13). As pointed out by the Patent
Owner (PO Cr. Resp. Br. 7), this is improper. Because this ground is not
listed as an issue on cross-appeal (Req. Cr. App. 6), we decline to address it
on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.61(d) and 41.67(c)(1)(vi).
Turning to the anticipation issue, the Requester asserts that the Szegda
patents describe every limitation of claims 1-3 and 11 (Req. Cr. App. 11-17).
Specifically, the Requester urges that Szegda’s disclosure regarding
increasing the extent of radial protrusion of shoulder 50b, relative to
shoulder 50a, to provide “greater holding power in the second clamped
position” (Szegda ’257 at col. 5, ll. 48-52) constitutes a description of the
limitation “said locking sleeve being movable . . . to a second position
inseparably locking said cable to said body,” as recited in claim 1 (Req. Cr.
App. 11, 13). Additionally, the Requester asserts that the Szegda patents
disclose “permutation 4,” which anticipates claim 1 (Req. Cr. App. 14-15).
The Examiner found that the Requester failed to demonstrate that the
Szegda patents anticipate claims 1-3 and 11 (RAN 30, 32, 35-37; ACP 57-
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
30
58). The Patent Owner agrees with the Examiner’s refusal to adopt the
proposed rejection (PO Cr. Resp. Br. 11).
We find no error in the Examiner’s refusal to enter the proposed
anticipation rejection. Szegda’s disclosure that the extent of radial
protrusion of shoulder 50b, relative to 50a, may be increased to provide
“greater holding power in the second clamped position” (emphasis added) is
not sufficiently specific to constitute a description of the disputed limitation
of claim 1, which requires “inseparably locking” (FF 18). The relied-upon
disclosure would certainly have suggested, or would have rendered obvious,
a holding power for shoulder 50b greater than that of shoulder 50a to an
extent sufficient to effect inseparable locking, but the plain language of the
disclosure indicates a considerably broader genus or range of holding
powers, including a holding power for shoulder 50b that is only slightly
greater than the holding power of shoulder 50a. Such a broad disclosure
does not anticipate.
The Requester’s reliance on the argument that Szegda describes
“permutation 4” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also misplaced.
Szegda’s disclosure that “the shoulders 50, 50b can be provided with
oppositely inclined surfaces” (FF 18; emphasis) does not constitute a
sufficiently specific description within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
a shoulder 50a with oppositely inclined surfaces and shoulder 50b with a
perpendicular rear face. Indeed, in describing Figure 3, Szegda used the
same expression “shoulders 50a, 50b” to mean both shoulders 50a and 50b
(FF 13). That usage undercuts the Requester’s argument that the comma in
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
31
“shoulders 50a, 50b” designates “and/or” such that the disclosure anticipates
“permutation 4.”
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s refusal to enter the
Requester’s proposed anticipation rejection.

PROPOSED REJECTION VI – OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON THE
SZEGDA PATENTS & BURRIS (CLAIMS 4-10)
37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vi) states that “[n]o new ground of rejection
can be proposed by a third party requester appellant, unless such ground was
withdrawn by the examiner during prosecution of the proceeding, and the
third party requester has not yet had an opportunity to propose it as a third
party requester proposed ground of rejection.” Therefore, we decline to
address any new reasoning or theory in support of the proposed rejection
that were not properly and timely raised in the original Request for Inter
Partes Reexamination, the Third-Party Requester’s Comments filed
September 1, 2006, and/or the Third-Party Requester’s Comments filed
April 3, 2008.
Claim 4, which ultimately depends from claim 1 through intervening
claims 2 and 3, recites in part: “annular groove of said locking sleeve is
defined between a pair of spaced apart radially outwardly extending sleeve
rings.”
The Requester urges that Szegda’s Figure 4 discloses the limitation of
claim 4 in the form of a space between the two shoulders 50 and 50b (Req.
Cr. App. 18; Third-Party Requester’s Comments filed September 1, 2006 at
9; Request for Inter Partes Reexamination 50 ). In addition, the Requester
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
32
relies on the teachings of Burris and asserts that “mere reversal of the
essential working parts of a device does not constitute invention . . . .” (Req.
Cr. App. 21). According to the Requester, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious “to substitute the single outwardly directed
sleeve ring (protruding shoulder 50a) of each of the Szegda patents with the
series of at least two ridges at the forward end of the locking sleeve as taught
by Burris” (Req. Cr. App. 23).
The Examiner responds that Szegda does not disclose the limitation of
claim 4 (RAN 43). Specifically, the Examiner found that the ordinary
meaning of “groove” indicates a relatively narrow channel and that the
Requester did not provide a reasonable interpretation of the term (ACP 68;
Office Action mailed June 6, 2006 at 25). Regarding Burris, the Examiner
found that the Requester failed to articulate a sufficient reason for combining
Burris with Szegda (ACP 11). The Patent Owner agrees with the Examiner
(PO Resp. Br. 12-18).
We discern no error in the Examiner’s refusal to adopt the proposed
rejection. While the Requester is correct that claims under reexamination
are given their broadest reasonable construction absent any special definition
or a clear disavowal, “such construction [must] be ‘consistent with the
specification, . . . and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t
would be unreasonable for the PTO to ignore any interpretive guidance
afforded by the applicant’s written description.”).
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
33
Other than attorney argument, the Requester has not directed us to
sufficient evidence (e.g., expert declaration testimony) showing that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “annular groove”
in the context of the ’247 Patent disclosure to encompass a channel of any
relative width, including a relative width such as the structure represented by
elements 50a and 50b of Szegda’s Figure 4 (FF10). That is, while the
Requester contends that the structure defined by Szegda’s elements 50a and
50b “is of the same general shape as ‘groove 46’ in the subject ’247 Patent”
and “describes the same functionality” (Req. Cr. App. Br. 18), we have not
been directed to sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered only the general shape and mere capability to engage
with a rib-like structure – without any regard to relative sizes – as the
primary or sole factors in determining whether a structure constitutes an
“annular groove.” Furthermore, we find it significant that Szegda explicitly
refers to a relatively narrow depression 52 as a “groove” but does not do the
same for the relatively wide channel defined by elements 50a and 50b (FF
14-17). These facts belie the Requester’s unsupported argument that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disputed term
in the manner proposed by the Requester.
In contrast to the Requester’s unsupported attorney arguments
proposing an unreasonable construction, the Examiner found that the plain
and ordinary meaning of the term “groove,” as evidenced by a dictionary
definition, indicates a structure that is a relatively narrow channel (Office
Action mailed June 8, 2006 at 25). Because the Examiner’s proffered
construction is consistent with the usages of the term “groove” in both the
App
Reex
Paten

’247
error
burd
alon
wou
arriv
Br. 2
with
obvi
Burr
prep
36 an
of cy
ridge
eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24
Patent and
.
For thes
en of mak
e. Oetiker
The Req
ld have co
e at the inv
1). An ob
some ratio
ousness. K
Burris’s
is’s Figure
ared end o
d 38 in w
lindrical b
s formed
09783
Control 9
7 B2
Szegda, w
e reasons,
ing out a p
, 977 F.2d
uester’s ar
mbined the
ention rec
viousness
nal under
SR, 55 U
Figure 9 i
9 above d
f a coaxial
hich first e
ody memb
upon first
5/000,119
e find tha
we conclu
rima facie
at 1445.
gument th
teachings
ited in cla
rejection r
pinning to
.S. at 418.
s depicted
epicts a ca
cable incl
nd 62 is a
er 40, “w
internal bo

34
t it is reas
de that the
case of ob
at a person
of Burris
im 4 is eq
equires an
support th
below:

ble F-con
uding, inte
dapted to e
hereby per
re 66 can
onable an
Requeste
viousness
of ordina
with Szeg
ually unav
articulati
e legal co
nector for
r alia, two
ngage and
haps one o
be forced
d free of re
r failed to
based on
ry skill in
da’s teach
ailing (Re
on of some
nclusion o
insertion o
basic com
receive f
r two of t
over the fi
versible
carry its
Szegda
the art
ings to
q. Cr. App
reasoning
f

ver a
ponents
irst end 47
he annular
rst one or
.

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
35
two annular ridges formed upon outer wall 54 of cylindrical body member
40” (col. 8, ll. 12-24; see also col. 3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 4).
The Requester concludes, without sufficient evidence or reasoning,
that “mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device does not
constitute invention . . . .” and also asserts that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Szegda’s shoulder 50a with the
series of at least two ridges at the forward end of the locking sleeve as
shown in Burris (Req. Cr. App. 21, 23). The Requester’s conclusory
statements, however, are either based on what appears to be a per se rule or
are not based on some rational underpinning as required. The Requester
merely identifies its reasoning as “based on the express teaching of Szegda
to modify both the height and shape of the first protruding circular shoulder
50a” or “the fact that each of [the Szegda and Burris] references is explicitly
stated to be an improvement over the same reference, U.S. Patent No.
4,834,675 to Samchisen” (Req. Cr. App. 23). As stated by the Examiner,
however, the Requester’s reasoning falls short of a sufficient reason to
support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted “to take a number of ridges from Burris and substitute them
for shoulder 50a of the Szegda patents” (ACP 11).
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s refusal to reject claims
4-10 based on the combination of Szegda and Burris.

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
36
PROPOSED REJECTION VII – OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON THE
SZEGDA PATENTS, BURRIS, & MING-HWA, TALLIS, OR WO ’179
(CLAIMS 6 & 7)
Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 4 through intervening claim 5.
Because the Requester failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness
against claim 4, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner (ACP 12)
that the further reliance on Ming-Hwa, Tallis, or WO ’179 for the additional
limitations recited in claims 6 and 7 does not cure the infirmities associated
with the proposed combination of Szegda and Burris.

PROPOSED REJECTION VIII – ANTICIPATION OVER MONTENA
(CLAIMS 1-3 & 10)
The Requester asserts that Montena describes every limitation of the
claims, including the limitation (claim 1) “said locking sleeve being movable
with respect to said body . . . to a second position inseparably locking said
cable to said body” (Req. Cr. App. Br. 25-27). According to the Requester,
Montena discloses a “protruding detent [having] a perpendicular face that, if
engaged with a perpendicular face of the groove or shoulder 254 with which
it engages in the second position, such engagement would meet the
limitation of ‘inseparably locking’ . . . .” (Req. Cr. App. Br. 26). In support,
the Requester relies on Montena’s Figure 17 (id.).
The Examiner and the Patent Owner disagree with the Requester
(ACP 60-61; PO Resp. Br. 21-22). Consistent with the Examiner’s position,
the Patent Owner responds that “[t]here is no clear disclosure of a
perpendicular wall in Figure 17” and that Figure 16, which was not
App
Reex
Paten

repro
perp
Br. 2
prop
show
limit
Mon
mem
figur
eal 2011-0
amination
t 6,767,24
duced by
endicular f
1).
We find
osed rejec
ing that M
ation of th
Montena
tena’s Fig
ber of a co
es, Monte
R
include a
acceptin
fastener
its first c
and 18, a
252 of th
body 22
fastener
09783
Control 9
7 B2
the Reque
ace but, in
no error in
tion, becau
ontena de
e claims.
’s Figures
ures 16 an
nnector, r
na disclose
eferring to
first notc
g a detent
member is
onfigurati
groove 2
e nut mem
4 such that
member in
5/000,119
ster, “illus
fact, appe
the Exam
se the Req
scribes, ei
Oetiker, 9
16 and 17
d 17 above
espectivel
s (col. 11
FIGS. 16
h 246 disp
248 of fas
securely
on. Moreo
50 may be
ber and a
the groov
its secon

37
trates that
ars to be c
iner’s refu
uester fai
ther explic
77 F.2d at
are repro

depict a c
y (col. 5, l
, ll. 37-49)
and 17, co
osed on it
tener mem
fastened to
ver, as ill
formed be
second no
e 250 acce
d configur
notch 254
urved or r
sal to ado
led to mee
itly or inh
1445.
duced belo
onnector
l. 64-67).
:
nnector bo
s outer sur
ber 228 to
the conne
ustrated in
tween a s
tch 254 on
pts detent
ation. How
does not h
ounded” (
pt the Req
t its burde
erently, ev
w:
body and f
Regarding
dy also m
face for
insure tha
ctor body
FIGS. 14
econd sho
connecto
248 of the
ever, this
ave a
PO Resp.
uester’s
n of
ery

astener
these
ay
t the
in
, 16,
ulder
r

Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
38
groove may be eliminated such that fastener member simply
abuts the positive stop provided by second shoulder 252 of the
nut member when the fastener member is in the second
configuration.
Contrary to the Requester’s belief, Montena’s Figure 17 does not
constitute a sufficiently specific description that detent 248 has a
substantially perpendicular rear wall sufficient to engage notch 254 to effect
inseparable locking. As pointed out by the Patent Owner, Montena’s notch
254 appears to be curved or rounded. While Montena does teach that “the
detent and the second notch cooperate such that the fastener member is
securely fastened to the connector body in its second configuration” (col. 4,
ll. 64-67), that disclosure must be taken in context with Figures 16 and 17,
which indicates that the engagement would not appear to be such as to
“inseparably” lock the cable to the body.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s refusal to enter the
proposed anticipation rejection.

PROPOSED REJECTION IX – ANTICIPATION OVER BURRIS
(CLAIMS 1-11)
The Requester asserts that “as there would be limited surfaces
available in the compressed position from which to pry the locking sleeve
from the connector body, the configuration of the Burris . . . connectors
would be very difficult to remove after full compression to the second
position” (Req. Cr. App. Br. 30).
The Examiner disagrees, explaining that “the forces necessary to
remove the locking sleeve [in Burris] appear to be the same forces involved
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
39
in moving the locking sleeve into the second configuration because the
annular ridges appear to be symmetrical” (ACP 63). The Patent Owner
agrees with the Examiner on this point (PO Resp. Br. 25).
Again, we find no error in the Examiner’s refusal to reject the claims
on this ground. Burris does teach that “[t]he series of ridges formed upon
outer wall 54 of cylindrical body member 40 and upon first internal bore 66
of collar assembly function as interlocking gripping teeth that are forced to
slide across each other during axial compression of F-connector 22, and
which resist removal of collar assembly 38 from cylindrical body member
40 following such compression” (col. 8, ll. 55-61). Burris’s disclosure
regarding resistance, however, is insufficient to anticipate the “inseparable
locking” limitation of claim 1. The collar assembly may resist removal, but
may not necessarily be engaged to such an extent that the cable is
inseparably locked.
Because the Requester’s speculation is ineffective to negate the
Examiner’s reasonable explanation based on symmetry of the ridges, we
affirm.

PROPOSED REJECTION X – OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON MONTENA
& BURRIS (CLAIMS 1-11)
The Requester argues (Req. Cr. App. Br. 31):
Requester has shown how claims 1-11 are anticipated by
Burris ’191. In the event the Board determines that the
“interlocking gripping teeth” of Burris ’191 do not form an
“inseparable locking” engagement of the connector body and
the locking sleeve because of the absence of interlocking
perpendicular faces, Claim 1, as amended, would be rendered
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
40
obvious over the combination of Burris ’191 in view of the
teachings of the embodiment of Montena ’194 found at col.
11:7 – 13:7.
As we discussed above, the Requester failed to demonstrate that
Montena describes the “inseparably locking” limitation. Therefore, the
Requester’s proposed rejection fails.

CONCLUSIONS
On this record, we determine that:
I. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 11 as violating the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1;
II. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 as indefinite;
III. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 2 under the
judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting;
IV. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 11 as
unpatentable over either of the Szegda patents;
V. The Examiner did not err in refusing to reject claims 1-3 and 11
as anticipated by the Szegda patents;
VI. The Examiner did not err in refusing to reject claims 4-10 as
unpatentable over the Szegda patents and Burris;
VII. The Examiner did not err in refusing to reject claims 6 and 7 as
unpatentable over the Szegda patents, Burris, and Ming-Hwa, Tallis or WO
’179;
VIII. The Examiner did not err in refusing to reject claims 1-3 and 10
as anticipated by Montena;
Appeal 2011-009783
Reexamination Control 95/000,119
Patent 6,767,247 B2
41
IX. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-11 as anticipated
by Burris; and
X. The Examiner did not err in refusing to reject claims 1-11 as
unpatentable over Montena and Burris.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3 and 11 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s final refusal to reject claims 1-11 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

rvb

PATENT OWNER:

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
MILWAUKEE WI 53202-5306

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS LLP
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE, SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110