Ex Parte Gundel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13377873 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/377,873 12/13/2011
32692 7590 09/21/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Douglas B. Gundel
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.
65542US048 7583
EXAMINER
LEE, PETET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS B. GUNDEL
Appeal2015-003526
Application 13/377,873
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a shielded electrical cable
including a conductor set, a shielding film, and a non-conducting support.
The non-conductive support can comprise any suitable polymeric material,
including synthetic rubber adhesives (Spec. p. 39, 11. 16--21). The support
1 Appellant states "[t]he real party in interest is 3M Company (formerly
known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) of St. Paul,
Minnesota and its affiliate 3M Innovative Properties Company of St. Paul,
Minnesota" (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2015-003526
Application 13/377,873
may partially cover the conductor set (Spec. p. 39, 1. 30 - p. 40, 1. 2). Claim
1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A shielded electrical cable comprising:
a conductor set including one or more substantially parallel
longitudinal insulated conductors;
a shielding film including a cover portion partially covering the
conductor set, and
parallel portions extending from both sides of the conductor set;
and
a non-conductive support partially covering the conductor set
opposite the cover portion of the shielding film, leaving
the conductor set partially exposed.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Prudhon (US 6,043,434, issued Mar. 28, 2000) in view of
Ikeda (US 6,057,511, issued l\1ay 2, 2000). 2. Claim 4 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prudhon in view of Ikeda, and
further in view of Lang (US 4,564,723, issued Jan. 14, 1986). 3. Claims 5,
7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Prudhon in view of Ikeda, and further in view of Tenge (DE 2547152 Al,
filed Oct. 21, 1975). 4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Prudhon in view of Ikeda, Tenge, and
Scantlebury (US 2001/0015282 Al, Aug. 23, 2001).
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the Examiner, we
determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to identify
2
Appeal2015-003526
Application 13/377,873
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. Jn re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for
substantially the fact findings set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and in the Examiner's Answer. We offer the following for emphasis.
Concerning the Examiner's first stated obviousness rejection
(Rejection 1 ), Appellant argues the claims together as a group. Accordingly,
we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding
this appeal as to Rejection 1.
Moreover, Appellant does not separately contest any of the rejections
of certain dependent claims subject to Rejections 2--4, wherein additional
prior art is further relied upon by the Examiner (App. Br. 4--5).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's determination that Prudhon
teaches or suggests a shielded electrical cable including a conductor set
having one or more parallel insulated conductors and a shielding film
including a cover portion and parallel portions extending from the sides of
the conductor set corresponding to the conductor set and shielding film
required by representative claim 1 (App. Br. 3--4; Final Act. 3; Prudhon, col.
3, ll. 56----62, Fig. 1 ).
Nor does Appellant contend that the Examiner's proposed
modification of Prudhon so as to include a non-conductive support, such as
the second adhesive 13 (Fig. 1) of Ikeda, which adhesive extends along a
trough formed by adjacent insulated wires as taught by Ikeda and such that
the adhesive support partially covers a conductor set when applied to
Prudhon while opposite to the shielding film cover portion of Prudhon
would fail to result in a shielded electrical cable that corresponds to the
3
Appeal2015-003526
Application 13/377,873
requirements of representative claim 1 as proposed by the Examiner (App.
Br. 3--4; Final Act. 3--4).
Rather, Appellant argues that "there would have been no reason or
motivation to apply adhesive 13 of Ikeda to Prudhon because the conductive
wires of Prudhon are already tight-up against each other by virtue of being
placed in groove 14" and "the advantage of securing wire together as set
forth by the Examiner does not apply" because the "conductive wires of
Prudhon are already secured in place by virtue of being in groove 14" (App.
Br. 4; Prudhon, col. 4, 11. 7-9, Fig. 1 ).
Appellant's argument lacks persuasive merit because it fails to
articulate why the Examiner's advocated rationale for the modification of
Prudhon so as to "aid in securing adjacent covered wires to one another"
would not have provided for enhancement to the securement/retention of the
conductive wires provided by Prudhon's "tight up against each other"
arrangement of the Figure 1 embodiment (Final Act. 3; Prudhon, col. 4, 11.
5-9). Indeed, Prudhon evinces that some enhancement of the wire securing
feature of the applied Figure 1 embodiment would be desirable as indicated
by the Figure 3 arrangement of Prudhon wherein overhanging projections
are further employed "enabling better retention of the conductive wires"
(col. 4, 11. 19-21 ). Appellant does not articulate why one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have reasonably expected some enhancement of the wire
securement/retention in the groove of Prudhon by adding an adhesive strip
as taught by Ikeda as a non-conductive support for the conductor set of
insulated conductor(s) of Prudhon. Significantly, Appellant seems to
reinforce the Examiner's obviousness rationale by Appellant's recognition
that Prudhon would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
4
Appeal2015-003526
Application 13/377,873
importance of adequately securing the conductive wires in the groove 14 so
that they "cannot possibly twist together so long as they are held in the
groove 14" (Reply Br. 2).
Thus, Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in
Rejection 1.
As indicated above, Appellant does not present additional argument as
to Rejections 2--4 as to certain dependent claims (App. Br. 4--5).
Accordingly, we shall likewise sustain the latter rejections for reasons
advance above and by the Examiner in the Final Office Action.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5