Ex Parte COX et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

13275798 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/275,798 10/18/2011 TERRY DEAN COX
21495 7590 08/23/2016
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.
Hil0-081 3224
EXAMINER
KIM, ELLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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 TERRY DEAN COX, MARK ROBERT DAGLEY,
LEE WAYNE NORED, SUSAN ELIZABETH SEMMLER, and
ANTWAN JOCO'QUES WORKS
Appeal2015-000946
Application 13/275,798
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-28 of Application 13/275,798.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Coming Optical
Communications LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000946
Application 13/275,798
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a transition box for a fiber
optic network within a multiple dwelling unit, such as an apartment building.
Spec. 1-2. Transition boxes provide termination and slack storage points to
transition between different types of cables such as riser cables, drop cables,
and distribution cables. Id.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A transition box for a fiber optic network for a
multiple distribution unit (MDU), comprising:
an enclosure comprising an interior area;
at least one fiber optic adapter removably mounted in the
interior area of the enclosure, wherein the at least one fiber
optic adapter is configured to receive one or more optical fibers
of a riser cable to provide optical communication service from
a service provider to a subscriber premises; and
at least one payout reel removably mounted in the interior area
of the enclosure, vvherein the at least one payout reel stores
slack of the riser cable paid out to at least one of one or more
distribution levels in the MDU.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Loeffelholz. 2
2. Claims 8-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Loeffelholz.
2 US 8,265,447 B2; issued Sep. 11, 2012 (hereinafter "Loeffelholz").
2
Appeal2015-000946
Application 13/275,798
3. Claims 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Loeffelholz and Stokes. 3
4. Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Loeffelholz and Weinert. 4
DISCUSSION
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that Loeffelholz does not anticipate claim 1 because
it does not disclose a payout reel "removably mounted" in the interior area
of the enclosure. App. Br. 4. Appellants further argue that Loeffelholz does
not anticipate claim 1 because its cable spool mounting assembly 14 has a
separate interior area from the interior area of main body 16 of enclosure 10.
Reply Br. 3. The Examiner responds that the cable spool assembly 142 of
Loeffelholz "is certainly capable of removal" from cable spool mounting
assembly 14, which is part of enclosure 10 as shown in Fig. 2. Ans. 3. The
Examiner points to the mechanical features such as notches 166, 408, ends
154, and latches 406 that are used for assembling Loeffelholz's cable spool
assembly 142 within the cable spool mounting assembly 14, as evidence that
the cable spool assembly is capable of being removed from enclosure 10. Id.
We reverse the rejection because the Examiner has not shown that
Loeffelholz meets all of the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner finds that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of "removably mounted" as recited in
claim 1 encompasses Loeffelholz's cable spool assembly 142 mounted on
enclosure 10, because the claim does not recite any infrastructure to
3 US 2008/0253723 Al; published Oct.16, 2008.
4 US 7,379,650 B2; issued May 27, 2008.
3
Appeal2015-000946
Application 13/275,798
facilitate removable mounting, and the Specification does not provide a
special definition of "removably mounted." Ans. 3. Even in the absence of
a special definition, however, the Examiner does not persuade us that the
ordinary meaning of "removably mounted" is so broad as to encompass
Loeffelholz's assembly which is merely "capable of removal." Id. Further,
the mechanical features that the Examiner finds are used for assembling
Loeffelholz's cable spool assembly on the enclosure (id.) do not establish
that the cable spool assembly is "removably mounted," but merely that it can
be disassembled. For example, notches 166 on the end plate 160 of cable
spool assembly 142 that engage with catches 182 of the drum portion 158 to
connect it to the end plate do not enable removal of the cable spool assembly
but rather connect parts of the cable spool assembly to each other.
Loeffelholz 7:25--41. Also, latches and notches 406 and 408 shown in Figs.
19 and 20 are used for engagement of the sides of shroud 400 with each
other; the shroud is part of cable spool mounting assembly 14, but does not
enable removal of cable spool assembly 142 from enclosure 10. Id. at
11 :44--54. We are persuaded for similar reasons by Appellants' argument
that Loeffelholz would require further modification in order for its cable
spool assembly to be "removably mounted" and therefore does not
anticipate. Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner erred reversibly in
finding that Loeffelholz anticipates claim 1, and correspondingly erred with
respect to independent claim 16 which also recites "at least one payout reel
removably mounted in the interior area of the enclosure." Claims Appx.
Because we find reversible error with respect to the independent claims, we
need not address the dependent claims subject to the anticipation rejection.
4
Appeal2015-000946
Application 13/275,798
Obviousness Rejections
The obviousness rejections are directed only to dependent claims and
are based on Loeffelholz as the primary reference. The obviousness
rejections do not cure the above-noted deficiency as to Loeffelholz.
Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 8-9, 18-26,
and 28.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSE
5