Ex Parte Cassell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13613759 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/613,759 09/13/2012 Daniel Andrew Cassell
21495 7590 06/30/2016
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Hil0-016 7797
EXAMINER
ROJAS, OMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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 DANIEL ANDREW CASSELL, MARK ROBERT
DAGLEY, GERRY JAY HARVEY, DIANA RODRIGUEZ,
and ANTWAN JOCO'QUES WORKS 1
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
1 The Appeal Brief, filed June 30, 2014, states that the real party in interest
is Coming Optical Communications LLC.
2 In this opinion we refer to the Specification filed September 13, 2012
("Spec."), the Final Action mailed January 27, 2014 ("Final Act."); the
Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2014 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed
August 18, 2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
and 3-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a fiber optic distribution network for
multiple dwelling units. Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims and are
reproduced below as illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A fiber optic network for a multiple dwelling unit (MDU)
having a plurality of distribution levels, comprising:
a riser cable preconnectorized with a first riser optical
connector, wherein the riser cable is optically connected to a
feeder cable providing optical communication service to the
MDU, and wherein the riser cable has a plurality of preset
distribution level access points along the length of the riser
cable, and wherein one or more optical fibers of the riser cable
extend from the riser cable at each of the plurality of preset
distribution level access points and are preconnectorized with at
least one second riser optical connector;
a first adapter located at a lower level of the MDU, the
first adapter having a first end and a second end, wherein the
first adapter is configured to receive the first riser optical
connector at the first end of the first adapter;
a plurality of second adapters, each located at one of the
plurality of distribution levels, each second adapter having a
first end and a second end; and
a payout reel adapted to pay out the riser cable such that
the riser cable extends between the lower level and at least one
of the plurality of distribution levels, and wherein each second
adapter is configured to receive one of the at least one second
riser optical connector at the first end of the second adapter and
to optically connect a drop cable via the second end of the
second adapter to establish optical connection between the
feeder cable, the riser cable and the drop cable, and wherein the
payout reel is adapted to store a length of the riser cable when
2
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
the first riser optical connector is received by the first adapter
and each second riser optical connector is received by one of
the plurality of second adapters.
15. A fiber optic network for a multiple dwelling unit (MDU)
having a plurality of distribution levels, comprising:
a riser cable having a first riser multi-fiber connector at
one end and a plurality of second riser multi-fiber connectors
along the length of the riser cable, wherein the riser cable is
optically connected to a feeder cable providing optical
communication service to the MDU;
a first multi-fiber adapter located at a lower level of the
MDU, the first multi-fiber adapter having a first end and a
second end, wherein the first multi-fiber adapter is configured
to receive the first riser multi-fiber connector at the first end of
the first multi-fiber adapter;
a plurality of second multi-fiber adapters, each located at
one of the plurality of distribution levels, the second multi-fiber
adapter having a first end and a second end;
a payout reel adapted to payout the riser cable such that
the riser cable extends between the first multi-fiber adapter and
at least one of the plurality of second multi-fiber adapters, and
wherein each second multi-fiber adapter is configured to
receive one of the plurality of second riser multi-fiber
connectors at the first end of the second multi-fiber adapter and
to optically connect a drop cable via the second end of the
second multi-fiber adapter to establish optical connection
between the feeder cable, the riser cable and the drop cable, and
wherein the payout reel is adapted to store a length of the riser
cable when the first riser multi-fiber connector is received by
the first multi-fiber adapter and each second riser multi-fiber
connector is received by one of the plurality of second multi-
fiber adapters.
Br. 14, 16 (Claims App'x).
3
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yoshida, et al., US 6,522,814 B2 Feb. 18, 2003
("Yoshida")
Blackwell, Jr., et al., US 7,120,347 B2 Oct. 10, 2006
("Blackwell")
Kowalczyk, et al., US 2008/0292261 Al Nov. 27, 2008
("Kowalczyk")
Final Act. 3, 9.
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
claims 1, 3-15, and 18-21 over Yoshida in view of Kowalczyk;
claims 16 and 17 over Yoshida in view of Kowalczvk and Blackwell. .,
OPINION
Rejection of claims 1, 3-14 over Yoshida in view of Kowalczyk
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-15, and 18-21 as a group. However, we
find independent claim 15 to be substantially different from independent
claim 1. We review the patentability of claim 1 and its dependent claims
separately from our review of the patentability of claim 15 and its dependent
claims. We select claim 1 as representative of the first group, i.e., claim 1
and its dependent claims. 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
4
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Yoshida
discloses a fiber optic network for a multiple dwelling unit comprising "a
riser cable (8) preconnectorized with a first riser optical connector
corresponding to the end of the lower branch cable (12)," wherein "the riser
cable (8) has one or more preset distribution level access points/branch
points (9) along the length of the riser cable (8)," wherein
one or more optical fibers of the upper branch cables (12) of the
riser cable (8) extend from the riser cable (8) at the one or more
preset distribution level access points (9), and are
preconnectorized with a second riser optical connector
corresponding to the ends of the optical fibers in the upper
branched cables (12).
Final Act. 3.
To these points, Appellants respond that Yoshida discloses a principle
cable (8) with a plurality of optical core wires (4) extending therethrough
and branching off to individual branch cables 12, with none of the branches
preconnectorized with at least one second riser optical connector, as required
by claim 1. Br. 8-10. Appellants contend that Yoshida nowhere suggests or
discloses preset access points in the principle cable or other cables. Id. at 9.
Appellants also argue that nothing in Yoshida suggests or discloses that
branch implements 9 are "preset." Id. at 10. We agree with Appellants, and
point to the drawings illustrative of the claim 1 and of Yoshida below.
5
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
!{!!
~------,------~
38 i 4~-, ~-arar~
___ ......... _.. ... /---.,,,,.
.:- . -1~:___ --~~~--r-----'----o[[IfJr:-,,,,;- ~,,1
" -""' : : : i i i ( -28
! ! I i-
,. - : ! ~
14 .... _,_ /~ ~-r-. .... _..,.--_..,.,,- I . - . , .. :.:_ _;;;: 48
19 -- •"l:":t:==::----,---------:cc-:---------J
'T
'X"
1
a../
2, •.
--36 i ~4
--34 !
.. ---j.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ~
_.--/32 I ,
,,.~-~,,...­
' m+------,---.____.-.'~--
: ~
_ .............. _,,... ... -----1""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l~-- l,4 i
... ~.. ::~:~::::::::::;~
rn "{ , \ \ )--HB:
20 /-1 :~J-m~ i/-i--36 \-- - 22
- J_ r-~;.,
47-'\ : ' :
;~_)~)T;7 _____ JJ 1~~ f,
Figure 1 of Specification
,.-------<:=-:: i,_!\,
I ~.,_
JH~::-":"f ·: ·"·""""oo,·· .. ·.' .. :tr ··· '' ·+--~ 1---- --+ t·············---~ =1J
'· +:-~~~~"Ft'¥~=. , -~c
,--- j" t jl]f ~~Â¥~~:::::::::;.: .. L. !
, , , ·H "s
i t ___ .. ,. i1!1=~---.;·".,.,_,_-' '-".-. ,___. ----r~ --------~
: i --- ,--4---1--±---r-- -1--1
------, :2~_'-1(
mrT~~ .J
1~:~r~t~m, 10 ·
Figure 2 of Yoshida
Figure 1 of the Specification shows a riser cable (14) wherein the
riser cable has a plurality of preset distribution level access points (identified
in the Specification as preset mid-span access points (16)) along the length
of the riser cable, and wherein one or more optical fibers of the riser cable
extend from the riser cable at each of the plurality of preset distribution level
access points and are preconnectorized with at least one second riser optical
connector (32). Spec. ,-r 32 and Fig. 1.
6
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
The Examiner asserts that Yoshida discloses "a riser cable (8)
preconnectorized with a first riser optical connector corresponding to the
end of the lower branch cable (12)," "wherein the riser cable (8) has one or
more preset distribution level access points/branch points (9) along the
length of the riser cable (8), and wherein optical fibers of the upper branch
cables (12) of the riser cable (8) extend from the riser cable (8) at the one or
more preset distribution level access points (9) and are preconnectorized
with a second riser optical connector corresponding to the ends of the optical
fibers in the upper branch cables (12) and wherein one or more optical fibers
of the riser cable extend from the riser cable at each of the plurality of preset
distribution level access points and are preconnectorized with at least one
second riser optical connector (32)." Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The
Examiner contends that "at least one end of each of the branch cables (12) is
connected to a connector part (14) located within an adapter/wiring box (10),
thus the end portion of the branch cable (12) of Yoshida would be
considered preconnectorized with a rise optical connector." Ans. 2.
In response, Appellants contend that Yoshida does not disclose the
features above, and we agree. Specifically, we find that Yoshida does not
teach a riser cable having preconnectorized optical fibers at preset
distribution level access points along the length of the riser cable, as
required by claim 1. See Br. 14 (Claims App'x). Instead, Yoshida teaches
branch cables (12) that are direct continuations of optical fibers in the riser
cable (8), rather than separate optical fiber cables with a connection to the
riser cable at distribution level access points, and without the site of the
branching being "preset." See Yoshida Fig. 2. For this reason, we find that
Yoshida also does not teach the required "one or more optical fibers of the
7
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
riser cable extend from the riser cable at each of the plurality of preset
distribution level access points." See id. Finally, we find that Yoshida does
not teach optical fibers of the riser cable "preconnectorized with at least one
second riser optical connector." See id.
We further find the Examiner's position that branch points (9)
correspond to preset distribution level access points (see Final Act. 3)
unpersuasive, as nothing in Yoshida describes the branch implements as
preset or having preconnectorized second riser optical connectors.
Because Yoshida fails to disclose the limitations described above, we
reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-14 over Yoshida in view
of Kowalczyk.
Rejection of claims 15 and 18-21 over Yoshida in view of Kowalczyk
Appellants' entire argument for patentability of claim 15 is that
"Claim 15 recites similar features to claim 1 and is therefore also allowable
over Yoshida and Kowalczyk for at least the same reasons as claim 1." Br.
11. Here we disagree with Appellants.
Appellants' arguments for patentability over Yoshida are that branch
cables (12) are not preconnectorized with at least one second riser optical
connector, and Yoshida does not suggest or disclose preset access points.
Br. 9-10. However, these limitations are not found in claim 15. Appellants'
argument that claim 15 is allowable over Yoshida for the same reasons as
claim 1 are consequently unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 15, the Examiner found that Yoshida discloses:
a riser cable (8) having a first riser multi-fiber connector
at one end corresponding to the lower end of the riser cable
shown in Fig. 1 and a plurality of second riser fiber connectors
8
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
along the length of the riser cable (8) corresponding to the ends
of the optical fibers in the branch cables (12), wherein the riser
cable (8) is optically connected to a feeder cable corresponding
to the lower left cable seen in Fig. 1 providing optical
communication service to the MDU (2);
a first multi-fiber adapter located at a lower level of the
MDU (2) corresponding to the box at the bottom of the MDU (2)
in Fig. 1 connecting the feeder cable to the riser cable (8), the
first multi-fiber adapter having a first end and a second end,
wherein the first multi-fiber adapter receives the first riser multi-
fiber connector/lower end of cable (8) at the first end of the first
multi-fiber adapter;
a plurality of second multi-fiber adapters/boxes (10) each
located at one of the plurality of distribution levels, each second
multi-fiber adapter (10) having a first end and a second end;
the riser cable (8) extends between the first multi-fiber
adapter and at least one of the second multi-fiber adapters (10),
and wherein each second multi-fiber adapter (10) is configured
to receive one of the second riser fiber connectors (12) at the first
end of the second multi-fiber adapter (10) and to optically
connect a drop cable corresponding to the upper right cable seen
in Fig. 3 via the second end of the second multi-fiber adapter (10)
to establish optical connection between the feeder cable, the riser
cable (8) and the drop cable, the first riser fiber connector is
received by the first multi-fiber adapter and each second riser
multi-fiber connector (12) is received by one of the second multi-
fiber adapters (10). See col. 2, line 51 to col. 3, line 45 of
Yoshida for further details.
Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner acknowledges that Yoshida does not teach (1) a payout
reel adapted to pay out the rise cable and to store a length of the riser cable;
or (2) each branch cable comprises a multi-fiber connector. Id. at 7. For
these elements of claim, 15 the Examiner turns to Kowalczyk.
9
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S> 398, 418 (2007)/
The Examiner finds that Kowalczyk teaches a payout reel adapted to
pay out a riser cable and to store an excess length of the riser cable. Id.
(citing Kowalczyk i-f 56). One of skill in the art at the time of the claimed
invention would have modified Yoshida to include the payout reel of
Kowalczyk in order to store the riser cable of Yoshida, according to the
Examiner. Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner further finds that Kowalczyk teaches a drop cable
having a multi-fiber connector. Id. at 7 (citing Kowalczyk i-f 95). In order to
increase fiber connectivity, the Examiner argues that one of skill in the art at
the time of the claimed invention would have modified Yoshida by
substituting each of the branch cables of Yoshida with the drop cable of
Kowalczyk. Id. at 8. The Examiner states that it would have been obvious
to obtain the invention of claim 15 by combining Yoshida with Kowalczyk.
Id.
Appellants argue that "Kowalczyk is directed to a plurality of payout
reels, each associated with an independent riser cable," "the subscriber cable
22 of Kowalczyk does not include any 'preset ... access points' at all," and
"the 'reels' of Kowalczyk are specific to each individual 'subscriber cable
22,' and not to any combined 'riser cable' as recited by claim 1." Br. 10
(underlining in original). In response, the Examiner states that "not every
detail of Kowalczyk needs to be combined with Yoshida; only one of the
10
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
payout reels [] disclosed by Kowalczyk would need to be combined with
Yoshida in order to obtain the invention specified." Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner. A preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's finding with regard to the inclusion of a single
payout reel for use with Yoshida's cable. Appellants have not convinced us
of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. Appellants have
not argued for separate patentability of dependent claims 18-21, thus we
affirm rejection of these claims as well.
Rejection of claims 16 and 17 over Yoshida in view of Kowalczyk and
Blackwell
Claim 16 depends from claim 15, and claim 17 depends from claim
16. Both claims 16 and 17 require the fiber optic network to comprise a
local convergence poiont (LCP) and a slack housing, wherein the LCP
receives the feeder cable, and wherein a distribution cable extends from the
LCP and routes to the slack housing. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
Appellants contend that Kowalczyk and the additional reference cited
against the claims, Blackwell, do not remedy the deficiency of Yoshida, and
it is not necessary to address the additional features in claims 16 and 1 7 to
overcome the rejection. Id. at 12.
For the reasons we discuss above, Appellants have not convinced us
of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. We affirm the rejections of
claims 16 and 1 7.
11
Appeal2015-000825
Application 13/613,759
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
15-21, but reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1and3-14.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12