Ex Parte Siripurapu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2019

14731955 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/731,955 06/05/2015
77001 7590
ULMER & BERNE LLP
c/o Diane Bell
600 Vine Street
SUITE 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
01/15/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Srinivas Siripurapu
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.
39795-1004US02 7609
EXAMINER
LEE,PETET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2019 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):
ipdocketing@ulmer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINIV AS SIRIPURAPU, SCOTT M. BROWN, and
STEPHEN A. THWAITES
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,955
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARKNAGUMO, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is generally directed to a foamed polycarbonate
cable separator. Spec. ,r 2. Sole independent claim 1 illustrates the subject
1 Appellant is the applicant, General Cable Technologies Corporation,
which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed December 14, 2017 ("App. Br."), 1.
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A communication cable comprising a cable separator, the
cable separator comprising an extruded body extending along
the length of the cable, wherein the body is formed from a
polycarbonate-based material, and wherein the polycarbonate-
based material is at least partially foamed.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered February 14, 2017 ("Final Act."), and maintains the
rejections in the Examiner's Answer entered February 8, 2018 ("Ans."):
I. Claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 21 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hampton3 in view of Chadwick4 and Boucino5;
II. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampton
in view of Chadwick, Boucino, and Kato 6;
III. Claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hampton in view of Chadwick, Boucino, and Vollenberg 7;
IV. Claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hampton in view of Chadwick, Boucino, Vollenberg, and Shen8;
V. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hampton in view of Chadwick, Boucino, and Glew9;
2 Although the Examiner includes claim 15 in the heading of this rejection
(Final Act. 3), claim 15 is not pending in the application, as the Examiner
correctly indicates on page 1 of the Final Action.
3 Hampton, EU 1280762, published July 5, 1972.
4 Chadwick et al., US 3,277,029, issued October 4, 1966.
5 Boucino et al., US 5,969,295, issued October 19, 1999.
6 Kato et al., US 2012/0090871 Al, published April 19, 2012.
7 Vollenberg et al., US 2009/0069489 Al, published March 12, 2009.
8 Shen et al., US 7,732,516 B2, issued June 8, 2010.
9 Glew et al., US 2007/0102188 Al, published May 10, 2007.
2
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
VI. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampton
in view of Chadwick, Boucino, and Makadia 10;
VII. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampton
in view of Chadwick, Boucino, Vollenberg, and Shen; and
VIII. Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hampton in view of Chadwick, Boucino, Vollenberg, and Ohira 11 .
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth
in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 21 together on the basis of
claim 1, to which we accordingly limit our discussion. App. Br. 13-17;
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Boucino discloses a communications cable comprising a cable jacket
and a spacer situated within the cable jacket that separates twisted pairs of
insulated conductors. Col. 1, 11. 41--43. Boucino discloses that the spacer is
longitudinally coextensive with the cable jacket, and includes a
longitudinally extending center portion and a plurality of wall portions
radiating from the center portion. Col. 1, 11. 43--47; col. 3, 11. 13-17; Figs. 1
and 2. Boucino discloses manufacturing the communications cable "by
extruding the spacer using a suitable polymer material," which Boucino
10 Makadia, US 2013/0330468 Al, published December 12, 2013.
11 Ohira et al. US 2007/0299169 Al, published December 27, 2007.
3
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
discloses to be "[a]ny of the polymer materials conventionally used in cable
construction." Col. 4, 11. 27-30; col. 3, 11. 2---6.
Chadwick discloses a foamed polycarbonate material that is "ideally
used for electrical insulation especially in co-axial cable insulation" due to
its "good electrical insulating properties" and because it "add[ s] relatively
little weight to the means being insulated." Col. 1, 11. 10-13; col. 2, 11. 1-5.
Chadwick discloses that the foamed polycarbonate material is also highly
resistant to aging and exhibits good resistance to water. Col. 1, 11. 68-71.
Chadwick discloses extruding the foamed polycarbonate material using a
conventional extruder. Col. 4, 11. 3-10.
Hampton discloses an electric cable comprising an outer conductive
sheath, at least two conductors, and either a single spacer that extends along
the entire length of the cable, or a series of separate spacers positioned along
the length of the cable. Pg. 1, 11. 76-83. Hampton discloses that the one or
more spacers have webs that extend radially outwards from the axis of the
cable between the conductors. Pg. 1, 11. 85-90.
Hampton discloses forming the one or more spacers from a dielectric
material, and indicates that the spacers may be injection molded as short
separate units, or may be extruded in lengths of several meters. Pg. 3, 11. 55-
62. Hampton discloses that when a polyphenylene oxide, polysulphone, or
polycarbonate dielectric material is used to form the spacers, they "may be
made by injection moulding and it is therefore convenient to use short
spacers which are positioned at intervals on the length of the cable." Pg. 2,
11. 82-89. Hampton discloses that spacers may also be formed of
polypropylene, which Hampton indicates "can be extruded," allowing
4
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
formation of "a single extrusion extending along the whole length of the
cable or relatively long spacers." Pg. 2, 11. 89--94.
Appellant argues that Hampton and Chadwick both fail to teach a
communication cable that includes a cable separator having an at least
partially foamed, extruded polycarbonate body extending along a length of
the cable. App. Br. 16. Appellant argues that Hampton "teaches away from
the claimed invention" because Hampton discloses that "the spacers can be
formed of polycarbonate by injection molding or [] formed of polypropylene
by extrusion." App. Br. 14 (citing Hampton pg. 2, 11. 82-95). Appellant
argues that Hampton thus "provid[ es] that polycarbonate cannot be extruded
and/or[] configured as a single-extrusion spacer extending along the whole
length of the cable." App. Br. 14--15 (citing Hampton pg. 2, 11. 82-95).
Appellant's arguments, however, are improperly based on Hampton
and Chadwick individually, and do not take into consideration what the
combined disclosures of Boucino, Chadwick, and Hampton would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's
invention. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.")
Although Hampton and Chadwick do not explicitly disclose a
communication cable, as discussed above, Boucino discloses a
communications cable that includes a spacer that separates pairs of insulated
conductors and is longitudinally coextensive with a cable jacket. As also
5
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
discussed above, Boucino discloses forming the spacer by extruding any of
the polymer materials conventionally used in cable construction. In view of
Hampton's disclosure of an electric cable in which a single spacer formed of
a dielectric material extends along the entire length of the cable, and
Chadwick's disclosure of an extrudable foamed polycarbonate material that
is "ideally used for electrical insulation" in co-axial cables, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to form a spacer extending along the
length of a communications cable as disclosed in Boucino by extruding the
foamed polycarbonate material disclosed in Chadwick, with a reasonable
expectation that the spacer would have good electrical insulating properties,
would be highly resistant to aging, would exhibit good resistance to water,
and would add little weight to the cable, as disclosed in Chadwick.
Although Hampton may not explicitly disclose forming an extruded
polycarbonate spacer that extends along the entire length of a cable, as
discussed above, Chadwick discloses extruding the foamed polycarbonate
material described in the reference. In view of Chadwick's disclosure that
the foamed polycarbonate material is "ideally used for electrical insulation,"
one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood that the
material could be used as a spacer that separates conductors and extends
along the entire length of an electric cable as disclosed in Hampton, and also
could be used as a longitudinally-extending spacer that separates conductors
within a communications cable jacket, as disclosed in Boucino.
We find no disclosure in Hampton criticizing, disparaging, or
otherwise discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from extruding
polycarbonate, or from configuring polycarbonate as a single-extrusion
spacer extending along the entire length of a cable. Thus, contrary to
6
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
Appellant's arguments, Hampton does not teach away from a
communication cable comprising a cable separator that includes a foamed,
extruded polycarbonate body extending along a length of the cable. In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("A reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.").
Appellant argues that Chadwick discloses that "polycarbonate foams
may be produced when the polycarbonate material is contacted with a
composition containing oxalic acid," and "one skilled in the art would not
look to modify Hampton with the teachings of Chadwick" because even if
Chadwick discloses that the polycarbonate-oxalic acid mixture is extrudable,
Chadwick discloses that the composition can be "used for electrical
insulation especially in co-axial cable insulation," and "there is nothing in
Chadwick to suggest that its polycarbonate-oxalic acid mixture would be
effective as a separator." App. Br. 16 (citing Chadwick col. 1, 1. 72---col. 2,
1. 3; col. 2, 11. 27-30).
Appellant's arguments again do not take into consideration what the
combined disclosures of the applied prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's invention. As discussed
above, Boucino discloses a communications cable that includes a spacer that
separates pairs of insulated conductors and is formed by extruding any of the
polymer materials conventionally used in cable construction, and Chadwick
discloses an extrudable foamed polycarbonate material "ideally used for
electrical insulation" in co-axial cables. In view of these disclosures, one
7
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected that a spacer
extending along the length of a communications cable as disclosed in
Boucino could be successfully produced by extruding the foamed
polycarbonate material disclosed in Chadwick. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351,
13 60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[ o ]bviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success ... all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success.") (emphasis omitted, citing In re O 'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04
(Fed. Cir. 1988)). As discussed above, one ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to produce such a spacer using the foamed polycarbonate
material disclosed in Chadwick due to its good electrical insulating
properties, high resistant to aging, good resistance to water, and low weight.
Accordingly, considering the totality of the evidence relied-upon in
this appeal, a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the
Examiner's conclusion that the communication cable recited in claim 1
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant's invention. We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejections II-VIII
To address these rejections, Appellant relies on the arguments made
for claim 1 ( discussed above), and argues that the additional references
applied in these rejections fail to cure the deficiencies of Hampton,
Chadwick, and Boucino. App. Br. 17. Because we are unpersuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for the reasons
discussed above, Appellant's position as to these rejections is also without
merit.
8
Appeal2018-004913
Application 14/731,95 5
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
9