Ex Parte Orozco et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11772522 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte WALTER OROZCO, ERIC A. VANDENHENDE,
CHRISTOPHER K. BLACK, and DAVID C. MUTCH
______________

Appeal 2011-012350
Application 11/772,522
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the
Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 4-9, 11, 13-21, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, and 24 over Azami (US
6,644,863 B1 issued November 11, 2003) and Liu (US 7,288,000 B2 issued
October 30, 2007), claim 6 over Azami, Liu, and Chang (US 6,409,391 B1
issued June 25, 2002), and claims 11, 13-21, and 23 over Azami, Liu, and
Davis (US 6,942,372 B1 issued September 13, 2005). We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
We decide this appeal on claims 1 and 4 argued by Appellants with
respect to the first ground of rejection, which arguments are relied on with
Appeal 2011-012350
Application 11/772,522
2
respect to the second and third grounds of rejection. App. Br. 6, 18, 20, and
21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
We have fully considered the arguments advanced by Appellants in
the Briefs in support of patentability, and based thereon, we are of the
opinion Appellants’ arguments do not establish that a preponderance of
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the nonobviousness
of a fiber optic cable assembly, having among other things a flexible stress
relieving sleeve 44, that can be releasably connectable to a port of a device
as specified in claim 1 on which claim 4 depends. App. Br. 23, 24 (Claims
App’x). Spec. ¶¶ 0018-0020, Fig. 2. In this respect, we are in agreement
with the Examiner’s analysis of the evidence in Azami and Liu and the
testimonial evidence in the VanDenhende Declaration under 37 C.F.R.
§ 132,1 and the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the Answer,
to which we add the following for emphasis with respect to Appellants’
arguments in the Briefs.
We disagree with Appellants’ position that the Examiner erred in
finding that Azami’s cover member 8, illustrated in Azami’s Figures 4 and
7BC as including a ribbed portion, is not a flexible stress relieving sleeve
when considered in light of Liu’s flexible stress relieving sleeve 23 which
has a ribbed portion as illustrated in Liu’s Figures 2 and 6. See Azami col. 3
ll. 5-18, 38-43. Ans. 4, 10-12; App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-4.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that,
contrary to Appellants’ contention, while Azami’s cover member 8 is

1 VanDenhende Decl. executed January 26, 2010, submitted January 28,
2010.
Appeal 2011-012350
Application 11/772,522
3
illustrated as having a ribbed portion that may resemble Liu’s flexible stress
relieving sleeve 23 having a ribbed portion, Azami would not have described
to one of ordinary skill in the art that cover member 8 is in fact flexible.
Ans. 10-12. In this respect, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Appellants failed to point to any disclosure in Azami which would establish
to one of ordinary skill in the art that cover member 8 functions as a flexible
stress relieving sleeve. Id. Indeed, contrary to Appellants contentions with
respect to Azami’s Figures, we find that in Azami’s Figures 7BC, the ribbed
portion of cover member 8 is not illustrated as flexing to any extent when
cover member 8 is installed around optical cable 2 covered with covering
layer 13. Azami col. 3, ll. 5-18, 38-43; see also col. 2, l. 59 to col. 3, l. 49.
Accordingly, we affirm the grounds of rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 11,
13-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cdc