Ex Parte Durrant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2013

12218807 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013)

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.
12/218,807 07/18/2008 Richard C.E. Durrant 806FO001.C1 5168
7590 08/16/2013
Karl D. Kovach
Emerson Network Power Connectivity Solutions, Inc.
Suite 308N
3000 Lakeside Drive
Bannockburn, IL 60015
EXAMINER
KIANNI, KAVEH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2013 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 RICHARD C.E. DURRANT and MARK WALDRON
____________________

Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHN A. EVANS, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 Real Party in Interest is Stratos International, Inc.
2 Claims 2, 3, and 10 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.
3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief filed March 29,
2010 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 18, 2010 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original
Specification filed July 18, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
According to Appellants, there are two categories of fiber optic
connectors available in the market, including: (1) physical contact
connectors, and (2) expanded beam connectors. See Appellants’ Spec.,
¶[0005]. In practice, a fiber optic cable terminated with (1) physical contact
connectors will only connect to other fiber optic cables which are also
terminated with (1) physical contact connectors. Likewise, a fiber optic
cable terminated with expanded beam connectors (2) will only connect to
other fiber optic cables which are also terminated with expanded beam
connectors (2). Id. As a result of such rigidity, Appellants’ invention seeks
to introduce a fiber optic connector which enables a user to replace a single
physical contact connector with a single expanded beam connector. Id.,
¶[0003] and Abstract.

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A device comprising:
a lens holder having an outside diameter substantially
equal to 1.25 millimeters;
a lens mounted within the lens holder, and wherein the
lens is a spherical ball lens, and wherein the lens has an outside
diameter that is less than the outside diameter of the lens
holder;
a ferrule mountable within the lens holder, and wherein
the ferrule has an outside diameter that is less than the outside
diameter of the lens; and
a gap between the ferrule and the lens.

Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

3

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sezerman US 4,753,510 Jun. 28, 1988

Examiner’s Rejection
(1) Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sezerman. Ans. 4-6.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants, and the findings of the Examiner, the dispositive issue on appeal
is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 and
their respective dependent claims 4-9 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sezerman. The issue turns on whether Sezerman
discloses or suggests: (1) “a lens holder having an outside diameter
substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters [or 2.5 millimeters]” and (2) “a gap
between the ferrule and the lens” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
App. Br. 10-13.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to
each of the contentions raised by Appellants. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

4

With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Appellants contend that
Sezerman does not disclose or suggest: (1) “a lens holder having an outside
diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters [or 2.5 millimeters]” and (2)
“a gap between the ferrule and the lens” as recited in independent claims 1
and 11. App. Br. 10-13. In particular, Appellants argue that:
(1) [Modifying Sezerman’s lens holder with a desired
diameter (1.25 mm for Appellants’ claim 1; 2.5 mm for
Appellants’ claim 11) is not a matter of design choice because]
Appellants’ claimed feature of the lens holder having an outside
diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters provides for an
expanded beam, non-physical contact connector having a
spherical ball lens where the connector is mateable with
receptacles that accommodate prior art, physical contact, fiber
optic connectors that do not have expanded beam capabilities
where the prior art fiber optic connectors conform to the LC
standard. Thus, the benefits of a non-physical contact, expanded
beam, fiber optic connector are made available to a user in the
same receptacle in which would normally fit a physical contact,
non-expanded beam, fiber optic connector (App. Br. 11)
(emphasis added);

(2) [D]isclosure of the Sezerman reference … only
includes fiber optic connectors that have a non-spherical ball
lens. Thus, if the noted paragraph is to be used as the
justification to modify the foregoing embodiments in a manner
as prescribed … then the only gaps which would be applied
between components would be to fiber optic connectors which
contain a non-spherical ball lens (App. Br. 12); and

(3) Further review of the Sezerman reference discloses
that a spherical ball lens is not disclosed until Figure 18 and the
associated written description is provided at column 18, lines
27-44… Thus, Appellants believe that the Sezerman reference
does not disclose a gap between the ferrule and the spherical
ball lens (App. Br. 12-13) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

5

However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, we
note that Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 11 are broad in scope and
simply define a device comprising: (1) a lens holder having an outside
diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters (2.5 millimeters for claim
11); (2) a lens mounted within the lens holder; (3) a ferrule mountable within
the lens holder; and (4) a gap between the ferrule and the lens. Appellants’
independent claims 1 and 11 do not define any expanded beam, single fiber,
fiber optic connector with many specific features shown in FIGS. 7-10,
including “where the connector is mateable with receptacles that
accommodate prior art, physical contact, fiber optic connectors that do not
have expanded beam capabilities where the prior art fiber optic connectors
conform to the LC standard” as advanced by Appellants. As such,
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of
claims 1 and 11.
Second, as correctly found by the Examiner, Sezerman discloses
spherical lenses and graded index (GRIN) lenses, including a lens of 2.0
mm, held by a lens holder and suggests a variety of lenses can be used in the
connectors. Ans. 6 (citing Sezerman, col. 11, ll. 21-30). In addition,
Sezerman also discloses gaps formed around the curvature of the ball lens
546 and that of the ferrule/fiber holder 550. Ans. 7 (citing Sezerman, FIG.
18). Sezerman further suggests that:
In practice it may be necessary to space the fibre end from the
lens to ensure that the image passing through the lens is focused
on the fibre end. Any such space or gap between the fibre end
and the lens can be filled with an index matching fluid or resin
having a low attenuation coefficient to minimize losses.

Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

6

Ans. 8 (underlining omitted) (citing Sezerman, col. 15, ll. 9-20).
In view of such teachings from Sezerman, we find the Examiner’s
factual findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence, and, as such,
we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that:
it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art
when the invention was made to modify Sezerman's lens-
holder’s diameter in accordance with a desired diameter of the
lens which is a function of numerical aperture (NA) of the fiber
being used in order to produce a device that includes the above
limitations; since such sizes are conventionally used, see prior
art listed with ball lenses of 1 mm, 2mm or larger, and since
such modification would output coupling light optimized with
great adjustment and efficiently (see col. 1) and since such a
modification would have involved a mere change in the size of
a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being
within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105
USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).

Ans. 8.
Separately, we note that the distinction drawn by Appellants between
a spherical ball lens and a non-spherical ball lens is without merit. App. Br.
11-13. Any such space or gap between the ferrule and the lens is created
regardless whether the lens is a spherical ball lens or a non-spherical ball
lens.
Appellants have not presented sufficient persuasive argument or
evidence that modifying Sezerman’s lens holder with the claimed outside
diameter was “was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland
KG v. C.H Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nor have
Appellants presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of
Appeal 2011-001662
Application 12/218,807

7

reversible error in the Examiner’s findings. Absent sufficient evidence or
persuasive arguments, we do not find error in the Examiner’s position and,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 4-9 and 12-17, which
were not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-9,
and 11-17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc