Ex Parte Van Swearingen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

13070934 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/070,934 03/24/2011 Kendrick Van Swearingen
79207 7590 06/13/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, PA
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
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.
9833-380IP2 3035
EXAMINER
PHAN, THIEM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3729
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENDRICK VAN SWEARINGEN
Appeal2014-004778
Application 13/070,9341
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEP AN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kendrick Van Swearingen (Appellant) seeks our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 7-13 and 15-
202. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Andrew LLC.
Appeal Br. 3 (filed Sept. 18, 2013).
2 Claims 1-6 were withdrawn. Id. at 5. Claim 14 is objected to by the
Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and otherwise
indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Id.; Final Act.
4-5 (mailed Apr. 24, 2013). Claim 14 is not part of the instant appeal.
Appeal2014-004778
Application 13/070,934
We REVERSE.
SUivIIvIARY OF DECISION
INVENTION
Appellant's invention "relates to an apparatus for spin welding
between coaxial cylindrical surfaces." Spec. 1, 11. 13-14.
Claim 7, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
7. A spin weld apparatus for spin welding a prepared end of
a coaxial cable with a coaxial connector, the spin weld
apparatus comprising:
a cable clamp dimensioned to grip the coaxial cable;
a drive collet dimensioned to enclose a longitudinal
extent of the coaxial connector and rotationally interlock with a
lateral surface of the coaxial connector;
the drive collet dimensioned to rotationally interlock with
an interlocking portion of a spin welder; and
the spin welder dimensioned to axially align the coaxial
connector with the coaxial cable for spin welding when the
drive collet is rotationally interlocked with the spin welder.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tuskos (US 4,090,898, iss. May 23,
1978) and Langham (US 6,210,222 Bl, iss. Apr. 3, 2001).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tuskos, Langham, and Montena (US 2011/0239451
Al, pub. Oct. 6, 2011).
2
Appeal2014-004778
Application 13/070,934
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claim 7 recites, inter alia, "a drive collet dimensioned to enclose a
longitudinal extent of the coaxial connector." Appeal Br. 20-21.
The Examiner finds that Tuskos discloses a drive coll et ( 102 or 104)
dimensioned to enclose a longitudinal extent of a snap fit connector. Final
Act. 2 (citing Tuskos col. 4, lines 31-32; Fig. 4). In the Answer, the
Examiner takes the position that the recitation of a coaxial connector is an
intended use, and thus, any connector could be used, such as Langham's
coaxial cable connector and therefore, the combined teachings of the
references render obvious claim 7. Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that jaw portions 104 of Tuskos "engage[s] only the
outer most diameter (annular flange L) of a fitting F." Appeal Br. 10 (citing
Tuskos, Figs. 4 and 5. Appellant asserts that "Tuskos plainly demonstrates
that far less than the longitudinal extent of the 'fitting, F' is enclosed by the
'collet' jaw portions 104." Id. at 11 (citing Tuskos, Fig. 6). Appellant
further argues that, moreover, the portions of Tuskos upon which the
Examiner relies, "provide[] no indication of Applicant's explicit limitation
that the drive collet encloses a longitudinal extent of the coaxial connector,
whatsoever." Id. at 12; see also Reply Br. 3.
At the outset we note that, although we appreciate the Examiner's
position that the recitation of a coaxial connector in claim 7 is an intended
use of the claimed spin weld apparatus, nonetheless, claim 7 requires that the
drive collet be "dimensioned to enclose a longitudinal extent" of a coaxial
connector. Here, because Tuskos' jaw portions 104 engage a longitudinal
portion of connector F, namely, flange L, jaw portions 104 are not
3
Appeal2014-004778
Application 13/070,934
dimensioned to enclose a longitudinal extent of the coaxial connector, as
called for by claim 7. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term
"extent" is "the amount of space or surface that something occupies or the
distance over which it extends." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
(1 lth ed. 2005). Hence, an ordinary and customary meaning of the phrase
"longitudinal extent" within the context of claim 7 is the longitudinal
distance over which the connector extends, that is, the longitudinal distance
occupied by the coaxial connector.
Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellant's Specification,
which describes with respect to Figures 6-8 "a drive collet 32 dimensioned
to enclose and rotationally interlock with the coaxial connector 2 along an
outer diameter and the longitudinal extent of the coaxial connector 2." Spec.
8, 11. 18-20; Figs. 6-8. Furthermore, as seen in Appellant's Figures 6 and 7,
collet 32 is slightly longer than connector 2 so that collet 32 encloses the
entire longitudinal distance over which connector 2 extends.
In contrast, Tuskos's jaws 104 (i.e., collet) enclose portion L of
connector F, whereas end S' extends outside of jaws 104 in order to
accommodate tube T. See Tuskos, col. 6, 11. 51-53; col. 7, 11. 40--43; Figs. 5
and 6. Thus, Tuskos'sjaws 104 are not dimensioned to enclose the
longitudinal distance occupied by fitting connector F, but merely a portion
of it, that is, portion L. Moreover, we note that the Examiner has not made
any findings to explain how collet 102, 104 of Tuskos is dimensioned to
enclose a "longitudinal extent" of Langham' s connector, as called for by
claim 7, inasmuch as the figure upon which the Examiner relies, namely,
Figure 4 of Tuskos, does not show collet 102, 104 enclosing a longitudinal
extent of connector F. Similarly, the disclosure upon which the Examiner
4
Appeal2014-004778
Application 13/070,934
relies, namely, Tuskos, column 4, lines 31-32, discloses a "fitting F suitable
for carrying a snap fit connector for securing the tube to a fluid conductor,"
but does not disclose a dimensional relationship between the connector and a
collet as set forth in claim 7. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 8.
Lastly, although Langham discloses a coaxial connector, as the
Examiner correctly finds (see Final Act. 3), the Examiner nonetheless fails
to adequately explain how, in the apparatus of Tuskos, as modified
according to Langham, collet 102, 104 is dimensioned to enclose the
longitudinal distance occupied by the coaxial connector, while also
accommodating tube T. See Ans. 8.
As such, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 7-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tuskos and Langham.
Rejection II
The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Montena in any
manner that would remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based upon
Tuskos and Langham as described supra. See Final Act. 4. Accordingly, for
the same reasons, as discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tuskos,
Langham, and Montena.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7-13 and 15-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5