Ex Parte Ciezak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2018

13440016 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/440,016
32915 7590
PANDUIT CORP.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
04/05/2012 Andrew Ciezak
09/18/2018
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.
LCB402-CON-4 1599
EXAMINER
18900 Panduit Drive GUSHI, Ross N
Tinley Park, IL 60487
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2018 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):
patents@panduit.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW CIEZAK, DAVID A. DYLKIEWICZ, and
MICHAEL V. DOORHY
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016 1
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
maintained rejection of claims 1 and 4---6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Panduit Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to plug interface
contacts that compensate for cross-talk vectors to obtain a desired level of
electrical characteristics. Specification filed April 5, 2012 ("Spec."),
Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. A communication connector for connection with a
communication plug, comprising:
a housing including a plug receiving aperture;
a plurality of plug contacts at least partially within said
plug receiving aperture, the plurality of plug contacts
comprising a bend section, a contact section opposite the bend
section, and at least one compensation section;
a support connected to said plurality of plug contacts,
said support at least partially within said housing;
a plurality of insulation displacement contacts; and
a printed circuit board, the plurality of insulation
displacement contacts and the plurality of plug contacts being
mounted on opposite sides of the printed circuit board, the
printed circuit board further comprising a plurality of traces
connecting the plurality of contacts to the plurality of insulation
displacement contacts, the traces also comprising compensation
circuitry, wherein the at least one compensation section
comprises first, second, and third compensation sections and
further wherein each compensation section is formed by
changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug
contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to
be different than that of an adjacent compensation section.
Appeal Brief filed February 7, 2017 ("App. Br."), 7.
2
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as lacking written description.
Claims 1 and 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as indefinite.
Claims 1 and 4---6 (a) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Hashim2 in view of Pepe. 3
DISCUSSION4
On this record, having reviewed the maintained grounds of rejection
set forth by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments and proffered evidence,
and the Examiner's response, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
reversibly as to any of the grounds of rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections," citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential)).
Written Description
The Examiner finds that written description is lacking for the
limitation that "each compensation section is formed by changing an
orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug contacts to a second
contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be different from that of an
2 Hashim et al., US 6,464,541 Bl, issued October 15, 2002.
3 Pepe et al., US 6,558,207 Bl, issued May 6, 2003.
4 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action
dated July 29, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner's
Answer dated March 24, 2017 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
adjacent compensation section." Final Act. 2. The Examiner maintains that
"[ n Jo 'orientation' of any contact is 'changed' from what is shown in figure
2." Id. The Examiner sets forth that "[t]he 'orientation of the contact' does
not change at every bend of the contact wire" ( emphasis omitted) (Ans. 3)
and "that "[t]he fact that one compensation section is different from another
compensation [section] does not mean that the 'orientation' of one contact to
another contact 'changes' in any way" (emphasis omitted) (id. at 6). The
Examiner further maintains "[t]he fact that the spacing between contacts at
one particular section of the contacts is different from the spacing between
contacts at another particular section of the contact does not suggest in any
way that the 'orientation of the contact' changes" (emphasis omitted). Id. at
4--5 (citing https://en.oxfordictionaries.com/definition/orient).
Appellants contend that "' [ o ]rientation' is the relative physical
position or direction of something" and that "[ t ]his includes distance ...
[such that] [i]f the distance between two objects changes, then ... the
orientation changes." App. Br. 4. Appellants rely on "Fig. 4 of the
specification show[ing] a side view of a contact formation in which the
contacts are divided into five sections, sections A, B, C, D, and E" ...
[including] [compensation] sections C, D, and E." Id. Appellants further
contend that sections C, D, and E "would be the first, second, and third
compensation sections described in claim 1" and that "the spacing between
the contacts in section C is different than that of section D and the spacing
between contacts in section Dis different than that of section E." Id.
Appellants then argue that "[ s ]ince the spacing is different between the
contacts among those sections, then the orientation of the contacts is
different among those sections" and that this suffices as written support for
4
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
"each compensation formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of
the plurality of plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug
contacts to be different than that of an adjacent compensation." Id.
Appellants' argument fails to identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. The issue is not whether there is a difference between
each compensation section and the next within the same plug contact, but
rather whether there is a difference in orientation between plug contacts,
each of which comprises a first, second, and third compensation section.
Claim 1. Appellants' identification of differences in spacing in section C
from those in section D and from those in section D from those in section E,
thus, does not suffice, and we are directed to no further persuasive argument.
Indefiniteness
The Examiner sets forth a rejection of the claims as indefinite (Final
Act. 3) and maintains the rejection (Ans. 2). Appellants fail to offer any
argument contesting the propriety of the indefiniteness rejection. See
generally App. Br. In the absence of any argument, we are unpersuaded of
any error and sustain proforma the rejection as set forth in the Final Office
Action and maintained in the Examiner's Answer.
Obviousness
Hashim relates to a communication connector that compensates for
crosstalk. The Examiner relies on Hashim for disclosing its communication
connector having a housing, a plug receiving aperture, a plurality of plug
contact at least partially within the plug receiving aperture, and for
disclosing the characteristics of the plurality of plug contacts. Final Act. 3--4
( citing Hashim, col. 4, 11. 22-30). The Examiner refers to an "annotated
figure below" in the Final Office Action (id.), but this annotated figure was
5
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
inadvertently omitted (Ans. 6-8), despite having been included in the prior
office action, dated April 12, 2016 ("Non-Final Act.") (id.; Non-Final Act.
7). The Examiner identifies the "contact section," "bend section," "first
[compensation] section," "second [compensation] section," and "third
[compensation] section" in the annotated figure. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 7-
8. The Examiner further relies on Hashim for disclosing a printed circuit
board 24 comprising a plurality of traces connecting contacts to insulation
displacement contacts, which traces also comprise compensation circuitry.
Final Act. 4 (citing Hashim, col. 4, 1. 65---col. 5, 1. 35); see also Non-Final
Act. 4.
The Examiner relies on Pepe for its disclosure of a similar connector
that includes insulation displacement contacts that are held in place via
compliant section. Final Act. 4 ( citing Pepe, col. 2, 11. 20-30).
The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious [ at the time
of the invention] to likewise mount IDC contacts in the vias 34 of the
Hashim board 24 protruding rearwardly as taught in Pepe" in order "to
facilitate arrangement of the cable wires as taught in Hashim and as was well
known in the art." Id.
Appellants contend that "[Hashim] does not disclose contacts having a
compensation section comprising a first, second, and third compensation
section" and that "the Examiner did not even attempt to identify a first,
second, and third compensation section." App. Br. 5. Appellants argue
further that the Examiner appears to be relying instead on the Board's
previous statement "'at least one compensation section' in claim 1 requires
the plurality of plug contacts to have at least one section that has a length or
any other feature capable of providing some effect in compensating
6
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
capacitive and/or inductive imbalance" despite the discussion being limited
to the previously pending claim 1. Id. ( citing Board Decision, dated October
23, 2015, in Appeal No. 2013-008655 ("Dec.")). Appellants further argue
such reliance on the Board's statement is not well founded because the
previously pending claim 1 did not include that "each compensation section
is formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of
plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be
different than that of an adjacent compensation section." Id. at 5---6. Still
further, Appellants contend that the Examiner, in relying on the Board's
statement, "failed to address every element of claim 1" and, thus, "failed to
make a prima facie case for obviousness." Id. at 6.
Contrary to Appellants' assertions, the Examiner did identify elements
in the cited prior art as first, second, and third compensation sections. Ans.
6-8; see also Final Act. 3--4; Non-Final Act. 3-5, 7. As such, the Examiner
addressed each of these elements. As to these identified elements
functioning to compensate for capacitive and/or inductive imbalance,
Appellants direct us to neither persuasive argument, nor evidence, that the
identified structure would not be expected to provide such function within
the meaning of the claim. See generally Appeal Br. In effect, the recitation
of first, second, and third compensation sections merely sub-divides into
three sections the compensating structure identified in Hashim that
corresponds to that of the instant application. Compare Hashim, Fig. 3, with
Spec., Fig. 4; see also Ans. 7 (annotated figure). On this record,
accordingly, we are apprised of no reversible error in the Examiner's
reliance on Hashim as disclosing the recited first, second, and third
7
Appeal2017-009769
Application 13/440,016
compensation sections, including that it is "[c]onsistent with Appellant's
[sic] definition of the 'orientation' of plug contacts." See Ans. 7-8.
On balance, the record of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to all claims on appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for
lacking written description is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
for indefiniteness is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8