Ex Parte Gundel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

13377840 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/377,840 12/13/2011
32692 7590 06/21/2016
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.
65542US027 5221
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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
Appeal2014-005592
Application 13/377 ,840 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is 3M Company.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005592
Application 13/377,840
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention is directed to shielded electrical cables for the
transmission of electrical signals. (Spec. 1) Claim 1 is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the principal Brief:
1. A shielded electrical cable comprising:
a conductor set including one or more substantially
parallel longitudinal insulated conductors;
two generally parallel shielding films disposed around
the conductor set; and
a conformable adhesive layer disposed between the
shielding films and bonding the shielding films to each other on
both sides of the conductor set, a bond between the shielding
films being stronger than a bond between at least one of the
insulated conductors and the shielding films.
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Tanaka (JP 2001-135157ii .. published l\1ay 18, 2001).
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view of Jesse (US 4,297 ,522, issued Oct. 27, 1981 ).
III. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view of Paquin (US 4,413,469, issued Nov. 8, 1983).
IV. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view of Weeks, Jr. (US 5,008,489, issued Apr. 16, 1991).
V. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view of Cheng (US 2008/0041610 Al published Feb. 21, 2008).
VI. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view ofBiegon (US 4,767,891, issued Aug. 30, 1988).
2
Appeal2014-005592
Application 13/377,840
VIL Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tanaka in
view of Booth (US 6,717,058 B2, issued Apr. 6, 2004).
OPINION2
For the reasons set forth below we affirm the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 5, and 6.
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Final
Action and the Answer. (Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3-7).
Appellant argues
Tanaka discloses an insulator 16 that includes a corrugated
outer surface having a plurality of ribs 16a for the purpose of reducing
adhesion strength between insulator 16 and foil sheets 22a and 22b.
Tanaka further discloses accomplishing reduction in adhesion strength
by limiting adhesion areas to only the top regions of ribs 16a. Hence,
any adhesive disclosed by Tanaka could not possibly conform to the
corrugated outer surface of insulator 16 because such conformance
would have necessarily resulted in increased adhesion strength rather
than reduced adhesion strength due to increase in contact surface area
between insulator 16 and foil sheets 22a and 22b. Hence, contrary to
the Examiner's statement, Tanaka does not teach or suggest a
conformable adhesive layer.
(App.Br. 4).
Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but are not
persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. We do not agree
2 Appellant presents arguments directed only to independent claims 1 and 5.
Appellant has not addressed separately rejected claims 2, 3, 4, and 7-9. See
Appeal Brief, generally. We limit our discussion to the independent claims
1and5.
3
Appeal2014-005592
Application 13/377,840
that Tanaka does not disclose a "conformable" adhesive layer as required by
the claimed invention. According to the specification, the conformable
adhesive layer may be a continuous layer or a discontinuous layer. (Spec.
12). Thus, the fact that Tanaka discloses the adhesive only contacts certain
points of the corrugated outer surface does not establish that the adhesive
layer is not conformable. Appellant's arguments regarding increased
adhesive strength are also not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant has
not adequately explained the correlation between adhesive strength and
conformability. That is, we have not been directed to an explanation that
establishes an adhesive that has increased adhesive strength is not
conformable.
Further it is noted that Tanaka discloses shielded flat cables that are
formed by bonding together with an adhesive agent that is applied to the
entire surface of the metallic foil sheets as the conventional technology.
(Tanaka i-fi-12-5; Fig. 12) This arrangement includes bonding the shielding
films to each other on both sides of a conductor.
For the reasons presented by the Examiner and those presented above
we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6.
Appellant has not provided arguments addressing the specific
limitations of claims 2, 3, 4, and 7-9. Appellant asserts claims 2, 3, 4, and
7-9 are patentable for the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 5.
As stated above we did not find Appellant's arguments regarding the
patentability of independent claims 1 and 5 persuasive. Consequently we
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and 7-9 for the reasons
presented by the Examiner and stated above.
4
Appeal2014-005592
Application 13/377,840
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 1, 5, and 6
and the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, and 7-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5