Ex Parte AdriaenssensDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201714052907 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017) 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. 14/052,907 10/14/2013 Luc Walter Adriaenssens 4799/0555PUS2 3171 82442 7590 11/22/2017 CommScope by Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 EXAMINER MAYO III, WILLIAM H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUC WALTER ADRIAENSSENS Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,9071 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—8, 10, 11, 17—19, and 21—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2 We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal relates to communications cables (claim 1). The inventor discloses the communication cables include thermally 1 Applicant, CommScope, Inc., is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Specification (Spec.) filed Sept. 14, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 11, 2016; and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Nov. 17, 2016. Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 conductive cable jackets that more efficiently dissipate heat that may build up in the interior of the cable. Spec. 120. Independent claim 1, is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.3 Limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A communications cable, comprising: a plurality of insulated conductors that are arranged as four twisted pairs of insulated conductors; and a cable jacket that surrounds the four twisted pairs of insulated conductors, the cable jacket including an outer surface that defines the exterior surface of the communications cable, wherein the cable jacket is a thermally conductive cable jacket that is formed of a thermally conductive plastic that exhibits electrical resistivity in the range of 1012 to 1016 ohm-cm while exhibiting thermal conductivity of at least 1.0 Watt/meter- Kelvin. The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: A. claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark4 in view of CoolPoly;5 B. claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view of CoolPoly and further in view of Chen;6 and C. claims 5, 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view of CoolPoly and further in view of 3 Appeal Br. 17. 4 Clark et al., US 2005/0023028 Al, published Feb. 3, 2005 (“Clark”). 5 Entry on website of Cool Polymers, Inc., for CoolPoly® D series plastic http://www.coolpolymers.com/dseries.asp (last visited Feb. 22, 2014). Appellant does not contest the availability of this reference as prior art against the claims. 6 Chen et al., US 2007/0151744 Al, published July 5, 2007 (“Chen”). 2 Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 Zangara.7 B. DISCUSSION Rejection over Clark and CoolPoly Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view of CoolPoly. We select claim 1 as representative of the issues on appeal. The Examiner finds Clark discloses a communications cable including, among other things, a plurality of insulated conductors arranged as four twisted pairs of insulated conductors and a cable jacket, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5. Clark is directed to cables including non-bumable and/or non-smokeable materials, particularly plenum-rated cables. Clark 13. Clark discloses a cable 1008 that includes four twisted pairs of insulated conductors 50a, 50b, 50c, 50d bundled together within a jacket 60, with each twisted pair 50 including insulated conductors 52a, 52b. Id. 127 (emphasis). Thus, the disclosure of Clark supports the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds Clark does not disclose that the cable jacket possesses the thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity values recited in claim 1. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds CoolPoly discloses a thermally conductive composition that can be used as the jacketing of wiring, has low thermal resistance, is low in cost, and is low in weight. Id. The Examiner further finds CoolPoly discloses that the composition has a thermal conductivity between 1—10 W/meter-K. Id. at 6—7. The Examiner 7 Zangara et al., WO 2007/060201 Al, published May 31, 2007 (“Zangara”). 8 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 3 Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 concludes it would have been obvious to use the composition of CoolPoly for the jacket in the cable of Clark because CoolPoly teaches the composition may be used for jacketing, has a low thermal resistance, is low in cost, and low in weight. Id. at 7. Appellant contends there would not have been a reason to modify Clark in view of CoolPoly because neither reference discloses that the composition of CoolPoly would be suitable for use in the plenum-rated cables of Clark or otherwise provide a reason to use the composition of CoolPoly in the cable of Clark. Appeal Br. 4—8, 13—15. Appellant further argues that CoolPoly discloses its material may be used as insulation material for the wires of a cable but not as the jacket for a cable. Id. at 8—9. In view of these arguments, Appellant asserts the Examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight in the rejection of claim 1. Id. at 6, 8. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. CoolPoly discloses that the CoolPoly® D-series composition has a thermal conductivity in the range of 1.0 to 10 W/m-K and an electrical resistivity in the range of 1012 to 1016 ohm-cm. CoolPoly 2. Therefore, the disclosure of CoolPoly demonstrates that the composition of CoolPoly would possess the thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity values recited in claim 1. CoolPoly further discloses that the composition is “ideal for the manufacture of plastic tubing” and has “[applications including jacketing of wiring.” Id. at 1. Thus, the composition of CoolPoly is not limited to insulation for wires, as argued by Appellant, and the disclosure of CoolPoly supports the Examiner’s finding that CoolPoly discloses its composition can be used for jacketing. With regard to Appellant’s argument that neither Clark nor CoolPoly 4 Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 discloses the use of CoolPoly’s material in the cable of Clark, it should be noted that what a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not limited to what a reference specifically “talks about” or what is specifically disclosed in the reference. (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A prior art reference that does not specifically refer to one element of a combination does not, per se, teach away or otherwise render a combination nonobvious. Syntex, 407 F.3d at 1380. “If it did, only references that anticipate could be used to support an obviousness analysis.” Id. Instead, “the test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, CoolPoly discloses its composition is useful for the jacketing of wires, as discussed above, which suggests the composition is useful for the jacket of Clark. Moreover, CoolPoly discloses its composition can provide low thermal resistance, low cost, and low weight. Id. This disclosure supports the Examiner’s reason to combine Clark and CoolPoly. Thus, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinning sufficient to support the legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to use the composition of CoolPoly in the cable jacket of Clark. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appellant contends it would not have been obvious to use the composition of CoolPoly in the cable of Clark because CoolPoly does not disclose or suggest its composition would be suitable for use in plenum-rated cables, such as the cables of Clark. Appeal Br. 9. To support this argument, 5 Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 Appellant states that CoolPoly discloses its composition passes the UL 94 V-0 flammability test but that the National Fire Protection Association’s Standard 262 (entitled "Standard Method of Test for Flame Travel and Smoke of Wires and Cables for Use in Air-Handling Spaces’ '') would be applicable for testing plenum space cables and the latter standard uses a more intense flame. Id. at 9—13. These arguments are also unpersuasive. First, as indicated by the Examiner at page 18 of the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant has not provided test results to show the composition of CoolPoly would not meet the requirements for the plenum space standard cited by Appellant. Second, Appellant has not established that the National Fire Protection Association’s Standard cited by Appellant is a standard widely accepted by practitioners in the plenum space art for determining whether a cable meets the flame travel and smoke requirements for that art or is otherwise suitable for such an application. Third, passing the UL 94 V-0 standard demonstrates the composition of CoolPoly possess some degree of flammability resistance. Appellant admits the UL 94 V-0 does not evaluate fire resistance on an hourly basis, flame spread, smoke characterization, and heat release. Id. at 9. Thus, although Appellant characterizes the UL 94 V-0 test as a low flammability standard {id.), this test does not evaluate the upper limits of flammability for a material and whether its flammability would fall short of what is required for a plenum space application. Therefore, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and Appellant’s arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue independent claim 17 or dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 19, and 21—23 from claim 1. Id. at 15—16. 6 Appeal 2017-004324 Application 14/052,907 For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 21—23 over Clark and CoolPoly. Rejections over Clark and CoolPoly in view of Chen or Zangara With regard to rejections B and C, Appellant cites the arguments asserted for the rejection of claim 1 and state it is not necessary to argue the allowability of dependent claims separately from claim 1. Id. at 16. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 5, 8, and 18. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation