13771376 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 23, 2016

13771376 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

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. 13/771,376 02/20/2013 YuLu 02316.2299USC4 7040 23552 7590 11/28/2016 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER RADKOWSKI, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2016 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): US PT023552@ merchantgould .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YU LU, RANDY REAGAN, MICHAEL NOONAN, and JEFF GNIADEK Appeal 2015-006237 Application 13/771,376 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 18 and 20—29, which are all the claims pending this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (App. Br. 2). 2 Claims 1—17 and 19 have been canceled. Appeal 2015-006237 Application 13/771,376 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a fiber optic cable including radio frequency identification devices (Spec. Title). Exemplary claim 18 under appeal reads as follows: 18. A fiber optic cable comprising: a main cable having a first end and an oppositely disposed second end, the main cable including a plurality of optical fibers and defining a plurality of breakout locations intermittently disposed between the first and second ends; and a plurality of radio frequency identification devices positioned at the breakout locations, each radio frequency identification device storing information about subscribers that are connected to the fibers attached to the respective breakout location. REFERENCES and REJECTION Claims 18 and 20-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elkins (US 2005/0259928 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005), Doany (US 6,377,203 Bl; issued Apr. 23, 2002), and McNamara (US 2006/0028352 Al; published Feb. 9, 2006) (see Final Act. 2—7). ANALYSIS First Issue With respect to claim 18, Appellants contend the combination of Elkins, Doany, and McNamara does not teach “a plurality of radio frequency identification (RFID) devices positioned at breakout locations [of a fiber optic cable]” (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue, although Doany teaches RFID tags disposed along an underground communications line for geographic marking purposes, Doany does not provide a reason to mark breakout locations (id.). 2 Appeal 2015-006237 Application 13/771,376 We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection, and agree with the Examiner’s finding that Doany uses RFID tags to mark specific locations along the communications cable (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2—6 (citing Doany, col. 6,11.18-46 and Fig. 1). Doany teaches those specific locations correspond to important underground features, such as cable splices (see also Doany, col. 5:60—65), and thus, we agree that Doany teaches the claimed RFID devices positioned at breakout, or splice, locations. Second Issue Appellants contend the combination of Elkins, Doany, and McNamara does not teach “each [RFID] storing information about subscribers that are connected to the fibers attached to the respective breakout location” (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 1—2) (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue the information stored on the RFID tags of Doany and McNamara is about the object to which the tag is attached, not about an object that is located at a remote location, such as the claimed subscribers that are separated from the breakout locations by the optical fibers (id.). Initially, we observe that Appellants’ disclosure does not specifically define “information about subscribers” (see Spec 10:16—18). As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation that is consistent with Appellants’ disclosure includes any information that is related, directly or indirectly, to a subscriber connected to the fibers (see In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): “[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that McNamara teaches an RFID tag that stores serial number information for tracking equipment on a networked system of subscriber communication devices, and such information is related 3 Appeal 2015-006237 Application 13/771,376 to the end users (i.e., subscribers) of the equipment by identifying the particular equipment used and its location (Ans. 3—6 (citing McNamara 1 8, which teaches a method for tracking objects that is further described in || 9— 11)). CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elkins, Doany, and McNamara. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 20- 29 (see App. Br. 6). We therefore sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 18. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18 and 20—29. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 4