Ex Parte Meyyappan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11467206 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAMASWAMY MEYYAPPAN,
RODERICK MACKENZIE, MICHAEL BIRCH, and GREGOR E. DEANS
____________

Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, HYUN J. JUNG, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-28, and 21-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates “generally to use of a subsea
optical junction assembly for coupling fiber optic cables.” Spec. 1, para.
[0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter.
1. A system for use in a subsea environment,
comprising:
at least one fiber optic cable for connection to surface
equipment;
a subsea optical junction assembly connected to the at
least one fiber optic cable;
subsea components; and
plural fiber optic cables connected to corresponding
subsea components,
wherein the subsea optical junction assembly couples the
at least one fiber optic cable for connection with the surface
equipment to the plural fiber optic cables connected to the
subsea components, wherein the subsea optical junction
assembly further has wet mate connectors connected to
corresponding ones of the at least one fiber optic cable and the
plural fiber optic cables, wherein each of the wet mate
connectors is configured to connect a corresponding one of
the at least one fiber optic cable and the plural fiber optic cables
to another corresponding fiber optic cable segment.

Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are
before us for review:
I. claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15-18, and 21-23 as unpatentable over
Maida (US 6,933,491 B2, issued Aug. 23, 2005) and Watt (US 6,167,831
B1, issued Jan. 2, 2001);
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

3
II. claim 6 as unpatentable over Maida, Watt, and Bridge (US
7,016,024 B2, issued Mar. 21, 2006); and
III. claims 7 and 14 as unpatentable over Maida, Watt, and Layton
(US 6,362,421 B1, issued Mar. 26, 2002).

OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on Maida and Watt
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12, 15-17, 22, and 23
Appellants argue claims 1-5, 8, 10 and 22 as a group and we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See App. Br. 5-8; see also
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Although Appellants argue claims 12, 15-17, and
23 under a separate heading from claim 1, Appellants rely exclusively on the
arguments made for claim 1 for claims 12, 15-17, and 23. App. Br. 9. Thus,
claims 2-5, 8, 10, 12, 15-17, 22, and 23 fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Maida substantially discloses the subject
matter of claim 1, but fails to disclose that:
the subsea optical junction assembly further has wet mate
connectors connected to corresponding ones of the at least one
fiber optic cable and the plural fiber optic cables, wherein each
of the wet mate connectors is configured to connect a
corresponding one of the at least one fiber optic cable and the
plural fiber optic cables to another corresponding fiber optic
cable segment.
Ans. 3-4. To cure the deficiency of Maida, the Examiner turns to Watt for
its disclosure of “wet mate connectors (26, 22) . . . used . . . [and] configured
to connect corresponding fiber optic cables to another corresponding fiber
optic cable segment such as the wet connectors (63, 62).” Ans. 5.
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

4
Appellants argue that “Watt clearly fails to disclose or hint at claimed
subject matter conceded to be missing from Maida.” App. Br. 6. More
particularly, Appellants acknowledge that “Watt does note . . . the connector
22 and receptor 62 are able to make a fiber optic cable connection”;
however, Appellants argue that “the detachable flying craft 20 of Watt is not
a subsea optical junction assembly that is able to couple at least one fiber
optic cable (for connection with surface equipment) to plural fiber optic
cables (connected to subsea components), as required in claim 1,” i.e., “the
flying craft 20 is able to connect to only one subsea device at one time.”
App. Br. 7. Stated another way, Appellants argue that “the flying craft 20
provides a one-to-one power and data connection between the underwater
vehicle 10 and the subsurface device 60,” and “[b]ecause the flying craft 20
is associated with the underwater vehicle 10 of Watt, . . . the flying craft 20
is intended by Watt to engage just a single subsea device, such as the device
60.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments appear to be addressing the Maida and Watt
references individually, but not addressing the combination of Maida and
Watt. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). We note that the Examiner’s rejection
relies on Maida to teach the at least one fiber-optic cable (optical fiber
umbilical 193) and plural fiber-optic cables (optical fibers 197), not Watt.
See Ans. 3, 4. However, because Maida does not teach a wet-mate
connector connecting each of the at least one fiber-optic cable (optical-fiber
umbilical 193) and the plural fiber-optic cables (optical fibers 197) to its
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

5
corresponding fiber-optic cable segment and subsea components (wells 196),
the Examiner modifies each of the at least one fiber-optic cable (optical fiber
umbilical 193) and the plural fiber-optic cables (optical fibers 197) of Maida
to have a wet-mate connector (connector 22/communication port 26,
receptor 62/ communications acceptor 63) as taught by Watt. See Ans. 5.
Since Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s combination of
the Maida and Watt references, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants also argue that “[t]he Examiner is effectively proposing
that the wellhead assembly 194 in Fig[ure] 4 of Maida be substituted with
the flying craft 20 of Watt,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been prompted to do this, because it “would result in the flying
craft 20 connecting the optical fiber umbilical 193 to just one of the wells
196 . . . [and thus,] would defeat the intended purpose of the arrangement
shown in Fig[ure] 4 of Maida,” i.e., “to couple the optical fiber umbilical
193 to multiple wells 196.” App. Br. 8.
We do not agree that the Examiner’s rejection effectively proposes to
replace Maida’s wellhead assembly 194 with Watt’s flying craft 20. Rather,
as is clearly stated by the Examiner, “Watt is used to teach wet mate
connectors and how they are a well known type of connector used to connect
fiber optic cables to other components in a subsea environment.” Ans. 10-
11 (citing Watt, col. 8, lines 32, et seq.). Indeed, Watt discloses that “power
output port 24 and power inlet 64 form a ‘wet-mate’ –type connector (i.e., an
electrical, hydraulic, and/or optical connector designed for mating and
demating underwater),” and “port 24 is integrated into connector 22 and
power inlet 64 is integrated with receptor 62.” Watt, col. 8, ll. 33-38. Thus,
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

6
the Examiner’s rejection proposes to place a pair of wet-mate type
connectors 22/26, 62/63, as taught by Watt, between the optical fiber
umbilical 193 and the upstream end of the wellhead assembly 194 and
between the downstream end of the wellhead assembly 194 and each of the
optical fibers 197 of Maida for the purpose of “improv[ing] efficiency of the
subsea system design by providing an effective connection means between
fiber optic cables and other subsea components.” Ans. 11. Although
Appellants argue that “no reason existed that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the art to [combine the teachings of Maida and Watt] to
achieve the claimed subject matter” (see App. Br. 8), we are not persuaded
because the Examiner’s articulated reasoning has a rational underpinning as
to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Maida by the teachings of Watt in the manner proposed by the
Examiner. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(holding that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”).
Appellants further argue that the “only apparent basis for the
obviousness rejection . . . appears to be impermissible hindsight” because
“[w]ithout the present invention as a template . . . [a] person of ordinary skill
in the art would not have been led by Watt to use the flying craft 20 of Watt
as a subsea optical junction assembly to connect to a fiber optic cable (for
connection to surface equipment) and plural fiber optic cables (for
connection to corresponding subsea components.” Reply Br. 3. The
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

7
argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner finds that Maida shows
these features. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants further argue that citing Watt as teaching the concept of
wet-mate connectors is improper “[p]icking and choosing selected teachings
of a reference in rendering a rejection, while ignoring other related teachings
of the reference.” Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants argue that “[i]n
Watt, any wet mate connectors are provided at the flying craft 20 and a
subsurface device.” Id. at 4. The argument is unpersuasive as the proposed
combination does not rely on wet-mate connectors being provided by the
flying craft 20. See Ans. 5. Instead, the Examiner finds that Watt teaches
wet-mate connectors and reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the structure of Maida because such wet-mate connectors provide
means for connecting structures together in an underwater environment.
Ans. 5.
Appellants also argue that “substituting the wellhead assembly 194 of
Maida with the flying craft 20 of Watt would have clearly destroyed the
functionality of the arrangement of Maida.” Reply Br. 4. The argument is
not persuasive because the Examiner is not proposing such a substitution.
See Ans. 3-5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, and claims 2-5, 8, 10, 12, 15-17, 22, and 23 fall therewith, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maida and Watt.
Claims 18 and 21
Appellants argue claims 18 and 21 as a group and we select
independent claim 18 as the representative claim. See App. Br. 9-12.
Claim 21 falls with claim 18.
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

8
The Examiner finds that Maida substantially discloses the subject
matter of independent claim 18, except Maida fails to disclose that “the
subsea junction assembly has an initially unused fiber optic cable,” as well
as the last two steps of claim 18. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner concludes that:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made that before one of the
multiplicity of cables was connected to a subsea component, it
would be considered an initially unused cable; therefore[,] it
could be capable of being attached to the subsea component and
communicate signals from the at least one cable to the newly
deployed subsea component through the subsea junction
assembly, the initially unused cable, and the connection.
Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no hint in Watt of a subsea junction
assembly that has plural optical fiber cables and at least one initially unused
fiber optic cable,” and “[t]he primary reference, Maida, also provides no hint
of the foregoing feature.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis in original).
However, the Examiner does not rely on Watt to teach plural optical-
fiber cables and at least one initially unused fiber-optic cable, but rather
relies on Maida to disclose plural fiber-optic cables 197. See Ans. 4.
Furthermore, the Examiner explains with respect to Maida that before the
last one of the plurality of cables 197 is connected to a subsea component
196, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider it to be an initially
unused cable that would be capable of being attached to a subsea component
to communicate signals from the cable to the newly deployed subsea
component. Id. Appellants have failed to cogently explain why the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning does not have a rational underpinning. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

9
Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been led by Maida or Watt to the recited “initially unused fiber
optic cable.” App. Br. 11 and Reply Br. 5-6. However, the Examiner finds
that Maida teaches a plurality of cables 197 and explains that before one of
the plurality of cables 197 is connected, the skilled artisan would consider
such a cable to be initially unused. Ans. 4. Appellants’ argument that the
flying craft 20 of Watt shows connectors for a one-to-one connection does
not correctly characterize the Examiner’s rejection and is therefore
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 18, and claim 21 which falls therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Maida and Watt.

Rejections II and III – Obviousness based on
Maida, Watt, and Bridge, and Maida, Watt, and Layton, respectively
Appellants rely on the arguments presented supra with respect to
claim 1. App. Br. 12. For the same reasons as discussed supra with respect
to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
of: claim 6 as unpatentable over Maida, Watt, and Bridge; and claims 7 and
14 as unpatentable over Maida, Watt, and Layton.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-18,
and 21-23.

Appeal 2011-008700
Application 11/467,206

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh