Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2014

12818586 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

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.
12/818,586 06/18/2010 Timothy W. Anderson 9457-48CTIP 8080
79207 7590 05/28/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
LEPISTO, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2014 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 TIMOTHY W. ANDERSON and RICHARD L. CASE
____________

Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

OPINION

A. Introduction
Appellants disclose “a connectorized fiber optic cabling assembly
[that] includes a loose tube fiber optic cable and a connector assembly” with
a “ribbonized [cable] configuration in the connector assembly.” Spec. 2-3 at
[006].
Claim 1, quoted below, is representative of the claimed invention:
1. A connectorized fiber optic cabling assembly comprising:
a loose tube fiber optic cable that includes a plurality of optical
fibers and at least one strength member; and
a connector assembly defining at least one fiber passage,
wherein the connector assembly is mounted on an end of the
cable such that the plurality of optical fibers extend through at
least a portion of the at least one fiber passage,
the connector assembly including a connector housing and a
strain relief boot mounted to the connector housing, the strain
relief boot having a boot passage through which the cable
extends, wherein the boot passage includes a front section
proximate the connector housing and a rear section distal from
the connector housing that receives the loose tube fiber optic
cable;
wherein the plurality of optical fibers have a ribbonized
configuration within at least part of the connector assembly and
have a loose configuration outside the connector assembly.
Claims App., Br. 19 (some paragraphing added).
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

3
At the time of the Final Rejection, claims 1-17 were pending. Final
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-12, and 16 as obvious
over the combination of US Patent No. 5,806,1751 (“Underwood”) and US
Patent No. 6,764,2212 (“de Jong”). Id. at 6. The Examiner also rejected
claim 8 as obvious over the combination of Underwood, de Jong, and US
Patent No. 5,630,0033 (“Arroyo”) and claims 13-15 and 17 as obvious over
the combination of Underwood, de Jong, and US Patent No. 6,464,4084
(“Nolan”). Id. at 8-9.
On appeal, in addition to some arguments not relevant to our decision,
Appellants present several arguments against the rejection of claims 1-11,
several similar arguments against the rejection of claims 12-17, one
argument against the rejection of claim 5, and one argument against the
rejection of claims 9 and 10. We have considered these arguments, and we
are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11 but not the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 5, 9, 10, and 12-17.

B. Discussion
1. Claims 1-11
Appellants present four arguments against the final rejection of claims
1-11. First, Appellants argue that the prior art relied upon by the Examiner
does not disclose the limitation “[wherein] the plurality of optical fibers
have a ribbonized configuration within at least part of the connector

1 Underwood, US 5,806,175, issued Sep. 15, 1998.
2 de Jong et al., US 6,764,221 B1, issued Jul. 20, 2004.
3 Arroyo, US 5,630,003, issued May 13, 1997.
4 Nolan, US 6,464,408 B1, issued Oct. 15, 2002.
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

4
assembly and have a loose configuration outside the connector
assembly.” Br. 5 (emphasis in original). According to Appellants, this
limitation “requires that the optical fibers transition from a ribbonized
configuration to a loose tube configuration within the connector assembly,”
while the prior art relied upon by the Examiner discloses only a transition
occurring outside the connector assembly. Br. 5-6.
We disagree. Claims 1-11 require only that the optical fibers “have a
ribbonized configuration within at least part of the connector assembly” and
that the optical fibers “have a loose tube configuration outside the connector
assembly.” Claims App., Br. 19. These limitations are satisfied by a cable
and connector in which the transition from loose tube to ribbonized cable
occurs outside the connector. The limitation “ribbonized configuration
within at least part of the connector assembly” can be satisfied by a
ribbonized configuration that extends throughout the entire connector
assembly. As for the limitation “a loose tube configuration outside the
connector assembly,” by arguing that the transition from loose tube to
ribbonized cable must occur inside the connector assembly, Appellants
implicitly argue that “outside the connector assembly” must be interpreted as
“everywhere outside the connector assembly.” It is well established that
“the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, Appellants advert to no definition of “outside the
connector assembly” that limits its meaning to “everywhere outside the
connector assembly.” In light of this, we are constrained to apply a broad
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

5
definition of “outside the connector assembly,” which encompasses
“somewhere outside the connector assembly.” Thus, all that is needed to
support the Examiner’s finding that de Jong discloses the limitation
“wherein the plurality of optical fibers . . . have a loose configuration outside
the connector assembly” is the disclosure in de Jong of a loose tube
configuration at some point outside the connector assembly. The Examiner
found that de Jong made just such a disclosure, Final Rejection 7; Ans. 10,
and we agree.
Appellants’ second argument with respect to the rejection of claims 1-
11 is that the prior art fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the boot
passage . . . receives the loose tube fiber optic cable,” because de Jong, on
which the Examiner relies for this limitation, teaches only a cable that “has a
ribbonized configuration at the point at which it enters the strain relief
boot.” Br. 9-10 (emphasis in original). We disagree. The de Jong reference
teaches a protective coating around the cable outside the connector
assembly, and it teaches that the fibers have a loose tube configuration
within this protective coating. de Jong col. 4, ll. 10-13. It also teaches that
the protective coating can abut the strain relief boot, id. at col. 3, ll. 32-35,
meaning that de Jong discloses a cable with a loose tube configuration
reaching to the point where the cable meets the strain relief boot.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the transition
between loose tube and ribbonized configurations occurs at the boundary
between the [cable] covering (22) and rear of the connector boot (24),” Ans.
11, and that de Jong therefore discloses the limitation of a strain relief boot
that “receives the loose tube fiber optic cable.”
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

6
Appellants next argue that there would have been no reason for a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Underwood and de Jong.
Br. 10-11. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to modify Underwood’s ribbonized cable
using the loose-tube cable of de Jong in order to “increase [the] flexibility of
[the] design and assembly.” Final Rejection 8. As de Jong notes, ribbonized
cables like those disclosed in Underwood “are difficult to use in those
locations where space is limited,” and de Jong attempts to solve this
problem. de Jong col. 1, ll. 17-18.
Finally, Appellants argue that de Jong teaches away from a
“transition[] from ribbonized to loose tube configuration within the
connector assembly (as is recited in Claim 1).” Br. 11. As discussed above,
a transition occurring inside the connector assembly is not a requirement of
claims 1-11, so this argument is not persuasive.

2. Claims 12-17
Independent claim 12 requires “that the optical fibers have a loose
tube configuration in a rear section of the connector housing and the
ribbonized configuration in a front section of the connector housing.”
Claims App., Br. 21. As such, contrary to the Examiner’s argument,
Ans. 14, claims 12-17 require a transition from loose tube to ribbonized
cable that occurs inside the connector assembly. As discussed above, the
prior art discloses a transition that occurs at the point where the cable meets
the connector assembly rather than a transition inside the connector
assembly. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the prior art cited by the
Examiner does not render obvious the subject matter of claims 12-17.
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

7

3. Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 requires a “strength member [that] completely
surrounds all of the optical fibers.” Claims App., Br. 19. The Examiner
relied on element 20 of Figure 5 of Underwood for disclosure of such a
strength member, Final Rejection 6, arguing that Underwood’s reference to a
“primary coating [that] completely surrounds the fibers while the strength
fibers run along the outside of the coating” constitutes disclosure of strength
fibers that completely surround the optical fibers, Ans. 13. We disagree.
Underwood’s Figure 5 shows strength fibers that do not completely enclose
the optical fibers, and we do not think that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would be led to a strength member completely enclosing the optical
fibers merely by Underwood’s disclosure of a coating that encloses the
optical fibers and “a plurality of strength fibers” that “[run] along the outside
of [the] coating.” Underwood col. 3, ll. 52-54.

3. Claims 9 and 10
Dependent claim 9 requires that “the optical fibers float within the
strength member.” Claims App., Br. 20 (emphasis added). Claim 10
depends from claim 9. Id. Thus, both claims 9 and 10 require that the
optical fibers be located “within the strength member.” Appellants argue
that “[nothing] in Underwood and/or de Jong suggest[s] that the strength
member of [a] cable should be configured so that the optical fibers float
within the strength member.” Br. 14. We agree. As discussed above, the
prior art relied upon by the Examiner does not disclose a strength member
that surrounds the optical fibers. Instead, it discloses a few strength fibers
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

8
on one side of the optical fibers and a few strength fibers on the other side,
placing the optical fibers between two strength members, but not within a
single strength member. Underwood, Fig. 5.
The Examiner’s rejection thus depends upon a construction of “optical
fibers . . . within a strength member” that encompasses “optical fibers
between two strength members that do not completely surround the optical
fibers.” We do not think that this construction is consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification”). The ordinary meaning of
“within” is “in; inside; enclosed or encased by.” Within, AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed., updated)
(2009), http://www.thefreedictionary.com/within. Appellants’ Specification
does not change this definition, because it uniformly shows and discusses
optical fibers completely surrounded by strength fibers, rather than between
two sets of strength fibers. See, e.g., Spec., Fig. 6. Because an optical fiber
cannot be “within” an element that does not surround, enclose, or encase the
optical fiber, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the prior
art—showing optical fibers located between two strength members but not
surrounded by those strength members—discloses the limitation of “the
optical fibers float[ing] within the strength member.”

C. Conclusion
Because the prior art fails to disclose strength members that
completely surround optical fibers and therefore fails to disclose optical
fibers that float within strength members, we reverse the rejections of claims
Appeal 2012-006505
Application 12/818,586

9
5, 9, and 10. Because the prior art fails to disclose a transition from loose
tube to ribbonized cable occurring inside a connector assembly, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12-17. Because none of Appellants’
arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-11 are persuasive, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11.

D. Order
The rejection of claims 5, 9, 10, 12, and 16 as obvious over the
combination of Underwood and de Jong is reversed. The rejection of claims
13-15 and 17 as obvious over the combination of Underwood, de Jong, and
Nolan is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 11 as obvious over
the combination of Underwood and de Jong is affirmed. The rejection of
claim 8 as obvious over the combination of Underwood, de Jong, and
Arroyo 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.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tc