HEXAGON TECHNOLOGY CENTER GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2020

2019004270 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/278,009 09/27/2016 Thomas JENSEN K1033.10086US02 4762
57137 7590 05/28/2020
Maschoff Brennan/Hexagon
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2020 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):
bisraelsen@mabr.com
docket@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS JENSEN, FRANK SAUPE, and
BENJAMIN VULLIOUD

Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, LILAN REN, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–25, 28, 29, and 31–38. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hexagon
Technology Center GmbH. Appeal Brief dated Nov. 29, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”) Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application generally relates to an optical sensor element
for a coordinate measuring machine having a coupling element.
Specification filed Sept. 27, 2016 (“Spec.”) 1. The Specification teaches
that there is a need to guide an optical fiber from the sensor element to the
control unit of the coordinate measuring machine. Id. at 2.
Plug-in couplings for optical fibers are known, but cannot be
frequently plugged in due to “the high level of sensitivity of the optical
interface to contamination and damage.” Id. at 2–3. The Specification
further states that “there is a need to change the sensor element relatively
frequently.” Id. at 3. It is the object of the present Application to
demonstrate an optical interface “capable of withstanding at least 50 000
plug-ins without damage.” Id.
Claim 16 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
16. A system comprising a coordinate measuring machine
and an optical sensor element for the coordinate measuring
machine, wherein the coordinate measuring machine comprises
a coupling element on the coordinate measuring machine side
and an optical machine contact element, the optical machine
contact element being held in a second ferrule surrounded by
a guide sleeve as an integral part of the coupling element on the
machine measuring side, both the second ferrule and the guide
sleeve being supported in a floating fashion in the machine
contact element, and
the optical sensor element comprises:
a coupling element on a sensor element side
adapted to be mechanically and optically connected to
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

3
the coupling element on the coordinate measuring
machine side; and
a first optical fiber for transmission of measuring
signals in the coupling element on the sensor element
side that has an optical interface adapted to be connected
to the optical machine contact element of the coordinate
measuring machine, which optical interface is formed by
an optical sensor contact element, for transmission of
optical signals, having a self-centering first ferrule
surrounding an end of the first optical fiber, the first
ferrule being supported in a floating fashion in the
coupling element on the sensor element side,
wherein the coupling element on the sensor element side
is designed to be connected with the optical machine contact
element by a plugging-in operation,
the optical machine contact element has a second optical
fiber within the second ferrule and the guide sleeve, and
the second optical fiber is held at one end in the
second ferrule and surrounded by the guide sleeve, the guide
sleeve projecting in an axial direction beyond the second
ferrule.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Shahid et al. (“Shahid”) US 6,273,619 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Cheng US 6,540,411 B1 Apr. 1, 2003
Jovanovich et al.
(“Jovanovich”)
US 2004/0017981 A1 Jan. 29, 2004
Hamada et al. (“Hamada”) US 2007/0047857 A1 Mar. 1, 2007
Christoph et al. (“Christoph”) US 2010/0014099 A12 Jan. 21, 2010
Cosneau FR 2334969 July 8, 1977
Haussman et al. (“Haussman”)3 DE 102006016056 A14 Oct. 19, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Action dated June 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 4.
2. Claims 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Haussman in view of Christoph. Id. at 5–17.
3. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.

2 English language translation of WO 2006063838 A1, published June 22,
2006.
3 The listed inventors are Peter Kuhn and Jörg Haußmann. For consistency,
we follow the Examiner’s practice of referring to this reference as
“Haussmann.”
4 The Examiner relies on a machine translation of Haussman. Answer 3.
References to Haussman herein are to the English language translation.
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

5
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of
Christoph and further in view of Cheng. Id. at 17–19.
4. Claims 19, 20, 23, and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in
view of Christoph and further in view of Cosneau. Id. at 19–
23.
5. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and
further in view of Shahid. Id. at 23–24.
6. Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and
further in view of Jovanovich. Id. at 24–25.
7. Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and
Cheng and further in view of Cosneau. Id. at 25–27.
8. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of
Christoph and further in view of Hamada. Id. at 27–29.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claim 36 as indefinite. Id. at 4.
Claim 36 provides as follows:
36. The system as claimed in claim 28, wherein a free end of
the second ferrule and the guide sleeve each has a chamfer for
self-centering during a connecting operation with the optical
sensor element, wherein
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

6
the chamfer of the ferrule has the ferrule with a conical
cross-sectional profile at an end of the ferrule where the cross-
sectional profile enlarges moving away from the end of the
ferrule; and
the chamfer of the guide sleeve has the chamfer as a
conical recess with a recess cross-sectional profile at an end of
the guide sleeve that narrows moving away from the end of the
guide sleeve.

Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that “[c]laim 36 recites ‘the ferrule’ without
indication of which ferrule is being referred to” and that this “renders the
claim indefinite.” Final Act. 4. Appellant does not challenge this
determination. Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 9th ed.,
§ 1205.02 (Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any
challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain
it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the
examiner’s answer.”).

Rejection 2. The Examiner makes lengthy findings in support of the
rejection of claims 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 as obvious over
Haussman in view of Christoph. Final Act. 5–17.
The Examiner generally relies on Haussman as teaching an optical
coupling and Christoph as teaching a coordinate measuring machine with an
optical sensor. Id.
Figure 1 of Haussman is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

7

Figure 1 of Haussman shows a plug connector system including housing 2,
ferrule 3, and spring 6. Haussman 6–7. Figure 2 of Haussman is also
reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

8
Figure 2 shows an enlarged view of one of the plugs of Figure 1. Haussman
8.
The Examiner finds that ferrule 3 of Haussman falls within the scope
of the claimed “second ferrule.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that
“coupling only occurs when the optical fibers are butt coupled and the
optical fibers are only protected when ensheathed by the ferrule. To achieve
both, which is common practice, ‘the end of the optical fiber is surrounded
by a ferrule’.” Id. at 7–8. Similarly, the Examiner finds that “per Fig. 2, the
end of the ferrule surrounded by coil spring 6 is seen as holding the optical
fiber per normal practice in delivering protected presentation of the fiber’s
end.” Id. at 8. The Examiner additionally finds that the “optical machine
contact element” is taught by “end of ferrule 3 or end of optical fiber
therein.” Id. at 5.
Claim 16 requires that “the second optical fiber is held at one end in
the second ferrule.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Similarly, claim 16
requires “the optical machine contact element being held in a second ferrule
surrounded by a guide sleeve.” Id.
Appellant argues that the claim requires, inter alia, “the optical
machine contact element to be in the second ferrule (e.g., ferrule 3 on left
side).” Id. at 11. Appellant further argues that the optical fiber of Haussman
is shown to extend beyond its ferrule (3) and that the ferrule is shown to be
spaced apart from the end of the fiber. Id. at 21. Accordingly, Appellant
concludes, the ferrule of Haussman has not been shown to hold the end of
the optical fiber. Id.
We find Appellant’s arguments to be consistent with record evidence.
The Examiner’s finding, that the end of the fiber must be ensheathed within
Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

9
the ferrule to be protected during coupling, appears to be speculative as the
Examiner does not cite any portion of Haussman that specifically supports
such finding. See Haussman, Figure 2.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 16 on
this basis. As claims 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 depend from 16 and
rely upon the same basis of rejection, we are persuaded of error in the
rejection of these claims.

Rejections 3–8. The Examiner rejects claims 18–24, 31–33, and 36
as obvious over Haussman and Christoph in combination with certain
additional references. Final Act. 17–29. The Examiner relies on the
findings discussed above in rejecting each of these claims. Id. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
these claims.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 as indefinite is affirmed. The
Examiner’s remaining rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2019-004270
Application 15/278,009

10
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
36 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 36
16, 17, 25,
28, 29, 34,
35, 37, 38
103(a) Haussman,
Christoph
16, 17, 25,
28, 29, 34,
35, 37, 38
18, 21 103(a) Haussman,
Christoph, Cheng
18, 21
19, 20, 23,
36
103(a) Haussman,
Christoph,
Cosneau
19, 20, 23,
36
22 103(a) Haussman,
Christoph, Shahid
22
24 103(a) Haussman,
Christoph,
Jovanovich
24
31 103(a) Haussman,
Christoph, Cheng
31
32, 33 103(a) Haussman,
Christoph, Hamada
32, 33
Overall
Outcome
36 16–25, 28,
29, 31–35,
37, 38

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

AFFIRMED IN PART