Ex Parte Young

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2013

12055002 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARVIN R. YOUNG
____________

Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BARBARA A. BENOIT,
and DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17, 41, 42, and 51-58. Claims 18-40 and 43-50 have
been canceled. App. Br. 2. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July
8, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed October 30, 2009; and (3)
the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed December 22, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a cleaning tool for optical connectors.
See generally Spec. ¶ 0002. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An optical connector cleaning tool comprising:
a hollow guide including a first end and a second end opposite the
first end; and
a mating connector attached to the first end of the hollow guide,
wherein the mating connector is configured to connect to an optical
connector, and
wherein the hollow guide is configured to receive a cleaning
implement at the second end and to guide the cleaning implement to the
optical connector at the first end.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Shimoji US 6,047,716 Apr. 11, 2000
Liu US 6,769,150 B1 Aug. 3, 2004
(filed Nov. 7, 2001)

The Rejections
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, 16, 17, 41, 42, 51-53, and 56-58 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shimoji. Ans. 3.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimoji. Ans. 3-4.
Claims 12, 14, 54, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shimoji and Liu. Ans. 4.

Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

3
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding illustrative claim 1, the Examiner finds that that Shimoji
discloses all the recited elements, including two alternative hollow guides as
elements 11 or 32 shown in Figure 4.
Concerning the first proffered hollow guide 11, Appellant argues that
(1) element 11 is not configured to guide the cleaning implement to the
optical connector at the first end while the mating connector is attached to
the first end of element 11 and (2) element 11 is not configured to receive a
cleaning implement at the second end. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 6. In contrast
with claim 1, Appellant contends that the hollow guide receives the cleaning
implement and the mating connector on the same end or left side. App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 2-3.
Regarding the second proposed hollow guide 32, Appellant asserts
Shimoji fails to disclose: (1) a mating connector as recited and (2) a hollow
guide configured to receive a cleaning implement at the second end and
guide the cleaning implement to the optical connector at the first end. App.
Br. 9.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Shimoji discloses:
(1) the mating connector is attached to the hollow guide’s first end
and the hollow guide is configured to receive a cleaning implement at the
second end; and
(2) the hollow guide is configured to guide the cleaning implement to
the optical connector at the first end?
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

4
ANALYSIS
1. Hollow Guide Mapped to Element 11
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, which recites in pertinent part that a mating connector is
attached to the hollow guide’s first end and the hollow guide is configured to
receive a cleaning implement at the second end. At the outset, we admit the
Examiner’s position is somewhat confusing. In the rejection and the
discussed-second alternative hollow guide (i.e., element 11), the Examiner
maps the hollow guide to cleaning housing 11, the mating connector to
housing 32, and the cleaning implement to cleaning member 12. Ans. 3. In
the Response to Argument section, the Examiner maintains that the hollow
guide is element 11, but maps the mating connector to backplane 30, and
cleaning implement to driving shaft 13. Ans. 5-6. To maintain consistency,
we will focus on the Examiner’s position in the rejection – not in the
Response to Argument section – and will not address Appellant’s arguments
(see Reply Br. 2-4) concerning the Examiner’s differing position in the
Response.
Appellant argues that element 12 (e.g., a cleaning implement) enters
the cleaning housing 11 (e.g., a hollow guide) from the left side and the
same side as the housing 32 (e.g., a mating connector). App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2-3. Based on this reasoning, Appellant asserts the hollow guide is not
configured to receive a cleaning implement at the second end as recited. See
Reply Br. 7-8. We disagree. First, Shimoji has a right arrow in Figure 1A
above cleaning member 12. Yet, as described, this arrow indicates an axial
direction of the shaft member (see col. 2, l. 30; col. 4, ll. 19-20) and does not
describe that the cleaning member 12 is inserted from the left or the
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

5
housing’s first end. Second, even assuming that the member 12 is inserted at
the left side, this does not prevent the cleaning implement (e.g., 12) from
also being received at the hollow guide’s (e.g., 11) second end.
To illustrate, a portion of Shimoji’s Figure 4 is shown below
providing a perspective view of the cleaning tool for an optical connector in
a “using state”:

Part of Figure 4 with Cleaning Housing 11 and
Cleaning Member 12 Shown in Use
Col. 3, ll. 31-32; Fig. 4. Here, the cleaning section 12a of the cleaning
member 12 is positioned on one end of the housing or hollow guide 11 (e.g.,
the left side of housing 11) and a connecting section 12b of the cleaning
member 12, connected to driving shaft 13, is positioned on a second side or
end of the hollow guide 11 (e.g., the right side of housing 11). See col. 4,
ll. 1-7; Figs. 1A, 4. Thus, a part of Shimoji’s cleaning implement 12 (e.g.,
connecting section 12b or the portion of 12 shown on the right side of
housing 11) is contained within a second end of the hollow guide (i.e.,
housing 11).
Moreover, giving the term, “receive,” its broadest reasonable
construction, Shimoji discloses the hollow guide is configured to receive a
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

6
cleaning implement at the second end. That is, the word, “receive,” includes
“to act as a receptacle or container for.”2 Given this understanding, Figure 4
in Shimoji demonstrates that the hollow guide (e.g., housing 11) is
configured to receive a cleaning implement (e.g., the portion of cleaning
member 12 shown on the right side of the housing 11) at its second end.
Appellant also admits that the “cleaning member 12 is . . . secured into place
within cleaning housing 11 . . . .” App. Br. 8. Shimoji further shows in
Figure 4 and describes that a mating connector (e.g., housing 32) is attached
to the first end of the hollow guide 11 (e.g., the end near the left side of
housing 11). See Ans. 3 (citing col. 4, ll. 66-67; Fig. 4).
Lastly, Appellant contends that the hollow guide (e.g., 11) is not
configured to guide the cleaning implement to the optical connector at the
first end because the cleaning member 12 is attached to the driving shaft 13
and is already secured into place within the cleaning housing 11 such that it
cannot guide cleaning member 12 from one end to the other end. See App.
Br. 8. We disagree. Notably, claim 1 does not recite that the hollow guide
is configured to guide the cleaning implement “from one end to the other”
end as argued. See id. Also, Shimoji discloses that the cleaning housing
(e.g., 11) acts as a guide to clean the end surface of the optical connector’s
ferrule 31a inserted in the other housing (e.g., 32). Col. 3, ll. 1-4; col. 4, l.
66 – col. 5, l. 4; Fig. 4. Shimoji further notes that the cleaning section 12a at
the forward end (e.g., the first end) contacts the optical connector plug 31
and the cleaning section 12 slides on the connection end surface of ferrule
31a so as to clean it using oscillation. See col. 4, ll. 15-20; Fig. 4. Shimoji

2 Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, “receive” (definition 2a), available
at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/receive.
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

7
therefore teaches, as broadly as recited, that the hollow guide is configured
to guide the cleaning implement to the optical connector at the first end.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13, 16, 17, 41, 42,
51-53, and 56-58 not separately argued with particularity3 (App. Br. 10-11).

2. Hollow Guide Mapped to Element 32
Based on the record before us, we also find no error in the Examiner’s
alternative rejection of claim 1 that maps the recited hollow guide to element
32 in Shimoji. Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to point to any
structure in Shimoji that discloses a mating connector as recited and that the
cited portions do not depict a mating connector attached to a first end of the
hollow guide and configured to connect to an optical connector. App.
Br. 9-10. We agree that the Examiner has not labeled with a reference
number an element in Shimoji corresponding to the mating connector. See
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner has cited to column 4, line 57, through
column 5, line 5, and Figure 4 in Shimoji. See id. This section of Shimoji
discusses and shows that optical connector plug 31 is inserted into the
housing 32 or attaches plug 31 to the hollow housing or guide 32 at the left
or first end. Col. 4, ll. 61-63; col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 1; Fig. 4.
Additionally, cited Figure 4 shows the plug 31 consists of multiple
components. See Ans. 3 (citing Fig. 4). Plug 31 includes an intermediate
rectangular element which mates with the rectangular component of housing
32 (e.g., a mating connector attached to a first end of a hollow guide), and

3 Appellant separately discusses claim 51 but states that this claim is
patentable for the reasons discussed with regard to claim 1. App. Br. 10-11.
Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

8
this intermediate portion also connects to an optical connector (e.g., ferrule
31a and ribbon fiber 31b). See col. 4, ll. 57-61; Fig. 4.
Appellant asserts that, while cleaning housing 11 engages to fit into
housing or hollow guide 32, the guide is not configured to guide the cleaning
implement to the optical connector at the first end or to guide the cleaning
element 12 in any way. App. Br. 10. We disagree. Shimoji teaches that the
cleaning housing 11 fits into the housing 32 and the optical plug 31 is
inserted into the housing 32. Col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 1; Fig. 4. Shimoji
further discusses that “[a]s a result [of this arrangement], the cleaning
section 12a at the forward end of the cleaning member 12 stored in the
cleaning housing 11 contacts with the multifiber optical connector plug 31
with the connection end surface of the ferrule 31a being pressed.” Col. 5,
ll. 2-5. Thus, Shimoji discloses that the arrangement of how element 11 fits
into housing 32 permits or “guides” the cleaning implement to contact the
optical connector at the first end. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 6-9, 13, 16, 17, 41, 42,
51-53, and 56-58 not separately argued with particularity.

THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Appellant does not separately argue the obviousness rejections of
claims 4, 5, 10-12, 14, 15, 54, and 55. See App. Br. 11. We are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims for the reasons
previous discussed and need not address whether the additional reference
teaches any alleged missing limitation.

Appeal 2010-006763
Application 12/055,002

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-17, 41, 42, and 51-58
under § 102 or § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17, 41, 42, and 51-58 is
affirmed.
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

babc