Ex Parte Giraud et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201612953134 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/953, 134 11/23/2010 William J. Giraud 21495 7590 06/24/2016 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. Hil0-038 2964 EXAMINER PAK,SUNGH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2016 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 WILLIAM J. GIRAUD, BRIAND. KINGSBURY, HEATH M. RASMUSSEN, and DIANA RODRIGUEZ Appeal2015-000500 1 Application 12/953, 134 Technology Center 2800 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Coming Cable Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Coming Incorporated, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2015-000500 Application 12/953, 134 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-29, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a fiber optic housing "having a top, a bottom, a right side, and a left side which removably attach to each other tool-lessly, and by other than external fastening means, thereby defin[ e] at least one interior chamber configured to support fiber optic equipment." Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed element: 1. A fiber optic housing, comprising: a top, a bottom, a right side, and a left side defining at least one interior chamber configured to support fiber optic equipment, wherein each of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side is configured to individually, removably and tool- lessly attach to another of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side by other than external fastening means. Appeal Br. 13. (Claims App.). B. The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-2, 12-16, 18-20, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Holmberg et al. (US 2009/0202214 Al; Aug. 13, 2009). Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2015-000500 Application 12/953, 134 The Examiner rejects claims 3--4 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holmberg, in view of Kitagawa (US 4,457,482; July 3, 1984). Id. The Examiner rejects claims 5-9 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holmberg, in view of Curry et al. (US 6,245,998B1; June 12, 2001). Id. The Examiner rejects claims 10-11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Holmberg. Id. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Holmberg fails to teach "each of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side is configured to individually, removably and tool-lessly attach to another of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side by other than external fastening means," as recited in independent claim 1.2 Appeal Br. 7. As argued by Appellants, Holmberg teaches a telecommunications wall box where alignment tabs located on cable covers fit within corresponding receptacles to provide alignment of the cable covers, while separate clamping portions located at opposite ends of each of the cable covers form the actual attachment mechanism for attaching cable covers to a main body. Appeal Br. 7-9. Appellants further argue that Holmberg fails to teach that the clamping portions may be attached "tool- lessly," and instead, teaches that external fasteners are required to provide the attachment mechanism. Id. 2 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal. 3 Appeal2015-000500 Application 12/953, 134 We find Appellants' argument persuasive. We disagree with the Examiner that Holmberg' s alignment tabs and corresponding receptacles, by themselves, attach the cable covers to the main body of the wall box. See Ans. 3--4. Instead, we agree with Appellants that the alignment tabs/receptacles merely align the cable covers to the main body, and it is the clamping portions that actually attach the cable covers to the main body. See Appeal Br. 7-9. We further disagree with the Examiner that Holmberg teaches that the use of fasteners and clamping portions are related to a completely different embodiment of Holmberg (i.e., the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 8), rather than the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claim (i.e., the embodiment illustrated in Figs. 13- 15). See Ans. 4. Instead, Holmberg explicitly teaches the wall box in Figs. 13-15 "includes many of the same structures as the wall box" in Fig. 8, including clamping portions provided at openings located at opposite ends of each of the cable covers in Figs. 13-15. See Holmberg i-f 55. Further, Holmberg explicitly teaches that the clamping portions are defined by half cylinders and that fasteners are used to attach the half cylinders. See Holmberg i-f 4 7. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Holmberg fails to teach "each of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side is configured to individually, removably and tool-lessly attach to another of the top, the bottom, the right side, and the left side by other than external fastening means," as recited in independent claim 1. Further, the Examiner has not established that any of the other cited references cure Holmberg's deficiency. 4 Appeal2015-000500 Application 12/953, 134 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18, which recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 2-17 and 19-29 for the same reason. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-29. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation