Ex Parte Giraud et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12952912 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/952,912 11/23/2010 William J. Giraud
21495 7590 06/28/2016
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.
Hil0-076 2567
EXAMINER
BEDTEL YON, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2874
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 and DIANA RODRIGUEZ
Appeal2015-001692 1
Application 12/952,912
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.
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
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 1-22. Appeal Br. 4. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a fiber optic apparatus that
"comprises a fiber optic housing having a top, a bottom, a right side, and a
left side defining [an] interior chamber configured to support fiber optic
equipment, and [a] mounting bracket." Abstract. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are
representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed
elements:
1. A fiber optic apparatus, comprising:
a fiber optic housing having a top, a bottom, a right side,
and a left side defining at least one interior chamber configured
to support fiber optic equipment; and
at least one mounting bracket removably attached to at
least one of the right side and the left side of the fiber optic
housing tool-lessly, and by other than external fastening
means, and configured to removably attach the fiber optic
housing to an equipment rack.
2. The fiber optic apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a
snap attachment integral to the at least one of the right side and
the left side of the fiber optic housing and removably attached
to the least one mounting bracket.
2
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
3. The fiber optic apparatus of claim 2, further comprising at
least one receiver disposed in the at least one mounting bracket
configured to receive the snap attachment.
Appeal Br. 14. (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6 and 9-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Morris (US 7,970,250 B2; June 28, 2011). Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morris. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1, 7-9, and 11
Appellants argue that Morris does not teach "at least one mounting
bracket" that is "removably attached to at least one of the right side and the
left side of the fiber optic housing tool-lessly; and by other than external
fastening means," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claim 11. Appeal Br. 7-8. More specifically, Appellants argue
that: (a) Morris teaches a latch and handle arrangement 10, rather than a
mounting bracket; (b) the latch and handle arrangement 10 is not used to
mount anything; and ( c) the latch and handle arrangement 10 does not both
attach "to ... the fiber-optic housing tool-lessly ... by other than external
fastening means," and also "removably attach the fiber optic housing to the
equipment rack." Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that
Morris's latch and handle arrangement 10 is simply provided on the panel
12, but is not removably attached to it. Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellants also
argue that Morris teaches that a separate snap-fit mounting arrangement,
3
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
rather than the latch and handle arrangement 10, is configured to mount the
panel 12 to a frame 14 without the use of fasteners. Appeal Br. 9; Reply
Br. 3--4. Appellants further argue that Morris explicitly teaches that the
latch and handle arrangement 10 is attached to the panel 12 by external
fasteners that would require tools. Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellants also argue
that: (a) Morris's lever arm 16 of the latch and handle arrangement 10
cannot mount the panel 12 (alleged to be the claimed "fiber optic housing")
to the frame 14 (alleged to be the claimed "equipment rack"), and (b)
Morris's flexible latch 18 is part of the frame 14 and not part of the latch and
handle arrangement 10. Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded of reversible error. We agree with the
Examiner that Morris teaches that the latch and handle arrangement
combines the functions and features of a latch release and a handle into a
single component, and thus, the latch and handle arrangement 10 includes
the flexible latch 18, the handle 16, and the catch 20, as the catch 20 is
included on the latch 18 and is used to lock and release the latch 18. Ans. 3-
4; see Morris 2:38--40, 55---63. We also agree with the Examiner that
Morris's latch and handle arrangement 10 teaches the claimed "mounting
bracket" because Morris teaches that the latch and handle arrangement 10 is:
(a) removably attached to a side of the panel 12 "tool-lessly" and by other
than external fastening means (i.e., via the catch 20 of the latch 18 and notch
22 of the panel 12), and (b) configured to removably attach the panel 12 to
the frame 14 (i.e., lock the panel 12 into a position relative to the frame 14
and to remove the panel 12 from the frame 14).2 Ans. 5-6; see Morris,
2 Applicants dispute whether Morris teaches that the latch and handle
arrangement 10 mounts the panel 12 to the frame 14. However, claim 1
4
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
2:53-3:4. We have considered Appellants' other arguments, but we do not
find them persuasive.
Appellants also argue that independent claim 11 recites "attaching at
least one mounting bracket to the equipment rack," and that Morris does not
teach attaching the latch and handle arrangement 10 to an equipment rack.
Appeal Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Morris teaches that the frame 14 includes the latch 18, and
thus, Morris teaches that the latch 18 (and therefore, the latch and handle
arrangement 10) is attached to the frame 14. Ans. 4, 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11. We further sustain the rejection of claims 7-9, not argued
separately.
B. Claims 2-6, 10, and 12-22
Appellants argue that Morris does not teach "a snap attachment
integral to the at least one of the right side and the left side of the fiber optic
housing and removably attached to the at least one mounting bracket," as
recited in claim 2, and similarly recited in claim 12. Appeal Br. 11. More
specifically, Appellants argue that Morris' flexible latch 18 cannot be the
claimed "snap attachment" because the latch 18 is part of (i.e., integral to)
the frame 14, and thus, not integral to either the right side or the left side of
does not recite that the "at least one mounting bracket" is configured to
mount the "fiber optic housing" to the "equipment rack." Instead, claim 1
merely recites that the "at least one mounting bracket" is configured to
"attach the fiber optic housing to [the] equipment rack." Thus, it is not
necessary to determine whether the latch and handle arrangement 10 mounts
the panel 12 to the frame 14 in order to resolve the appeal of claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
the panel 12. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 10. Appellants further argue that
the Final Office Action's interpretation of the claim term "integral" as
"connected" is improper because the plain and ordinary meaning of
"integral" is something different than merely "connected." Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 10-11. Appellants also argue that the latch 18 cannot be both the
claimed "mounting bracket" and the claimed "snap attachment" removably
attached to the claimed "mounting bracket" because the latch 18 cannot be
removably attached to itself. Reply Br. 9-10.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellants that
Morris's latch 18 does not teach the claimed "snap attachment" because the
latch 18 is part of the frame 14, and thus, not integral to either the right side
or the left side of the panel 12. Morris 2:55-57. We disagree with the
Examiner's rationale that the latch 18 is integral with a side of the panel 12
merely because Morris teaches that the latch 18 connects to the panel 12.
We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred by mapping Morris's
latch 18 to both the claimed "mounting bracket" and the claimed "snap
attachment" that is "removably attached to the ... mounting bracket."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2
and 12. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3--6, 10, and 13-22,
which depend upon one of claims 2 and 12. 3
3 Should there be further prosecution of this application, we suggest that the
Examiner review US Pat. No. 7,627,221 B2, which describes the details of
the snap-fit mounting arrangement identified in Morris, and which Morris
incorporates by reference.
6
Appeal2015-001692
Application 12/952,912
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We also affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-6, 10, and 12-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7