Ex Parte Dalton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201612546311 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) 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. 12/546,311 08/24/2009 John G. Dalton LCB697 3151 32915 7590 PANDUIT CORP. 18900 Panduit Drive TINLEY PARK, IL 60487 12/23/2016 EXAMINER BEDTELYON, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): patents@panduit.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN G. DALTON, JERRY A. WILTJER, and CALVIN H. DERR Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 Technology Center 2800 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated. Final Act. 2—7. Oral arguments were heard on December 9, 2016. A transcript of the hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is the only independent claim. The claims relate “generally to adapters for fiber optic connectors and specifically to adapters with enhanced alignment for multi-fiber push on (MPO) type connectors.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized: 1. An adapter for connecting two opposing fiber optic connectors comprising: a housing, the housing containing a channel extending from a first face to a second face; latch pockets contained within the channel on opposite sides; and a pair of floating connector latches configured to be contained within the latch pockets, the floating connector latches having opposing stabilizer tabs protruding proximately from a top and a bottom of each floating connector latch proximate to a center of each latch, the opposing stabilizer tabs configured to engage pocket slots incorporated in the latch pockets utilizing a clearance fit such that the floating connector latches can float within the latch pockets, the floating connector latches having engagement features on each end and configured to span a distance between corresponding retention notches on the opposing fiber optic connectors. REJECTION Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Belenkiy et al. (US 5,333,222, July 26, 1994). Final Act. 2—7. OPINION The Examiner finds Belenkiy discloses each limitation of claims 1— 15. Final Act. 2—7. The Examiner maps Belenkiy’s lugs 26 to the recited stabilizer tabs and “the space formed by portion 28,” which Belenkiy describes as shoulders, to the recited pocket slots. Id. at 3. The Examiner 2 Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 finds that, in Belenkiy, “elements 22 [(abutting inserts)] are separate elements from the housing that are inserted with a clearance fit into the latch pockets, and are thusly interpreted to be floating as they’re unrestricted and capable of being slid[] into the housing elements.” Id. Belenkiy’s Figure 1 is reproduced below (with red boxes added to highlight key features). Belenkiy’s Figure 1 is an exploded parts view showing adapter assembly 10 comprising housing portions 14 and 16 each adapted to receive a corresponding insert 22 and each insert 22 comprising lugs 26 to align inserts 22 within mated housing portions 14 and 16. See Belenkiy, 3:20-62. Appellants argue Belenkiy does not disclose “stabilizer tabs configured to engage pocket slots incorporated in the latch pockets utilizing a clearance fit such that the floating connector latches can float within the latch pockets” (the “disputed limitation”), as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4. Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner is unable to identify any part of Belenkiy 3 Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 that actually articulates the use of a clearance fit and instead merely assumes that there is one.” Id. Appellants assert Belenkiy “specifically teaches a lack of a clearance fit” because Belenkiy describes “[rjigidly locking the inserts in an abutting relationship[, which] precludes the possibility of a clearance fit.” Id. In the Answer, the Examiner cites dictionary definitions1 for “clearance” and “fit,” stating that the definitions “provide the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claimed phrase ‘clearance fit’” as requiring that “something be the right size so as to clear something else.” Ans. 2. Thus, the Examiner finds Belenkiy discloses the disputed limitation because it discloses lug 26 being “the right size to clear the housings 14 and 16 to fit therein, and engage with the latch pockets.” Id. at 3. The Examiner explains that, if Belenkiy failed to teach a clearance fit, “the device would not fit together as Belenkiy teaches it does.” Id. The Examiner further states that “elements 22 are separate elements from the housing” and are “interpreted to be floating as they’re unrestricted and capable of being slid into the housing elements.” Id. In the Reply, Appellants argue the Examiner’s proposed construction of clearance fit is improper because it is not consistent with the Specification. Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue paragraph 18 of the Specification supports a construction of “clearance fit” that “precludes latches that are rigidly locked to the housing.” Id. Appellants assert elements 22, which the Examiner maps to the recited latching arms, “are rigidly locked between the adapter halves [(14 and 16)] and are incapable of 1 It appears the Examiner did not put the cited definitions in the record. 4 Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 sliding relative to the housing” when Belenkiy’s device is assembled. Id. at 5. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s proffered construction is inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification and, hence, unreasonably broad. Specifically, paragraph 18 of the Specification explains the “clearance fit” arrangement between the stabilizing tabs and pocket slots “prevents the connector latches from being rigidly attached to the housing halves,” “helps to control the mating distance of the connectors by allowing the connectors to move and adjust, in unison, relative to the housing due to strain . . . without adversely affecting the optical alignment of the connectors,” and “minimizes insertion loss by allowing some freedom in the movement of the connectors and reduces ferrule pin-to-pocket binding.” Spec. 118; see Reply Br. 4. Moreover, claim 1 itself, which is directed to “[a]n adapter for connecting two” connectors, recites “the opposing stabilizer tabs configured to engage pocket slots utilizing a clearance fit such that the floating connector latches can float within the latch pockets.” Claim 1 recites the clearance fit is used to engage the stabilizer tabs with the pocket slots to allow the disclosed float within the adapter. Contrary to the Examiner’s construction, the clearance fit is disclosed as a fit when the two halves of the adapter and the two connectors are connected. Logically, the recitation of the latches being able to “float within the latch pockets,” which further defines the clearance fit, also must occur while the stabilizer tabs are engaged with the pocket slots. In both claim 1 and Belenkiy, the stabilizer tabs are engaged with the pocket slots only when the two housing halves are assembled. 5 Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner that Belenkiy discloses a clearance fit simply because Belenkiy’s elements 22 are separate from the housing (when disassembled) and may be “floating as they’re unrestricted and capable of being slid into the housing elements.” See Ans. 3^4. Rather, we agree with Appellants that “Belenkiy clearly describes elements 22 (the element equated by the Examiner as a latching arm) as being rigidly secured between ... the adapter halves (elements equated to the housing).” See Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, because the disputed limitation requires the floating connector latches to be able to “float within the latch pockets” when the connectors and housing halves are assembled and Belenkiy describes its inserts 22 as being “rigidly lock[ed]” to the adapter halves, Belenkiy fails to disclose the disputed limitation. For the reasons discussed above, we find the Examiner erred in rejection claim 1 and claims 2—15, which depend therefrom, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15. Conclusion We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Answer. We find Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—15. 6 Appeal 2015-003631 Application 12/546,311 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation