LEONI KABEL HOLDING GMBHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 26, 20212021000524 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/250,254 08/29/2016 GERHARD ANGERMANN FDST-P130804-1 8656 24131 7590 10/26/2021 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP P O BOX 2480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480 EXAMINER PAGHADAL, PARESH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2021 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): docket@patentusa.com office@patentusa.com vrahimis@patentusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERHARD ANGERMANN, KLAUS BITTERWOLF, THOMAS BRUNNER, MICHAEL DREINER, CHRISTIAN ECK, JAN FOERSTER, SEBASTIAN GOSS, JENS MOSEBACH, ULRICH RAUPACH, and RAINER SESSNER Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–25. The Examiner has withdrawn pending claims 1–19 and 26–28 from consideration. Final Office Action 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Leoni Kabel Holding GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 13, 2020, at 1. Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 2 (“Final Act.”) dated November 12, 2019, at 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to a cable, in particular, an inductor cable, having a plurality of cable cores each with a conductor interrupted at a plurality of separation points along their length. Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 29, 2016, ¶ 13.2 An insulating intermediate piece is provided at each separation point to connect opposing conductor ends. Id. A continuous insulating sheath surrounds the conductor and the intermediate piece to form each cable core. Id. Claim 20, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 20. A cable, comprising: a plurality of cable cores which are stranded together, each of said cable cores containing: a conductor being interrupted at a plurality of separation points at predetermined longitudinal positions in a longitudinal direction, forming two conductor ends; an insulating intermediate piece connecting said conductor ends, wherein said conductor ends are disposed on both sides of said insulating intermediate piece, wherein said insulating intermediate piece is a flexible, tension-resistant element; and a continuous insulating sheath, wherein said conductor and said insulating intermediate piece are jointly surrounded by said continuous insulating sheath to 2 This Decision also cites to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated August 26, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed October 26, 2020. Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 3 form a cable core, and wherein said continuous insulating sheath is applied directly to said conductor and passes continuously over said insulating intermediate piece; wherein said plurality of cable cores, each with a separate continuous insulating sheath, are stranded together to form the cable. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Viohl et al. US 2009/0099555 A1 Apr. 16, 2009 Ueda et al. US 2011/0226507 A1 Sept. 22, 2011 Hellinger US 2012/0181858 A1 July 19, 2012 Lee US 2014/0238968 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 1. Claims 20 and 22 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl; 2. Claims 21, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl, and further in view of Lee; and 3. Claim 23 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl, and further in view of Ueda. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 4 the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the stated rejections. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections based substantially on the fact findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis. Rejection 1: Obviousness over Hellinger and Viohl The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl. Final Act. 2–5. Appellant argues these claims together, focusing on the limitations of claim 20. We, therefore, limit our discussion to claim 20, and claim 22 stands or falls with claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner finds that Hellinger discloses a cable substantially as recited in claim 20, except for an explicit teaching that the insulating intermediate piece is configured as a flexible, tension-resistant element. Final Act. 2–4. However, the Examiner finds that Viohl discloses a cable having insulating intermediate pieces made of PTFE (“polytetrafluoroethylene”), which the Examiner determines is a flexible, tension-resistant element. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Hellinger’s cable by making the insulating intermediate piece of PTFE as taught by Viohl because PTFE is well-known to have high dielectric strength, low dissipation factor, high operating temperatures, is unaffected by moisture, humidity, and liquids, and PTFE insulated wires suitable for a wide frequency range and are not subject to creep or deformity over time. Id. at 5. Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 5 Appellant argues that there is nothing in Viohl that would have motivated an ordinary artisan to have modified Hellinger’s insulating intermediate piece 9 to be made of PTFE. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant contends that Viohl fails to teach an intermediate piece “that could even remotely be compared with [Hellinger’s] mechanical insulator bridge 9”. Id. at 5. Appellant concedes that Hellinger teaches mechanical insulator bridge 9 connecting two conductor ends disposed on opposite ends of the bridge, as required by claim 20. Id. However, Appellant asserts that Viohl teaches placing PTFE around the outer circumference of a conductor so that the outer circumference is insulated. Id. As such, Appellant contends that Viohl fails to teach or suggest placing PTFE longitudinally between two parts of an individual conductor. Id. at 5–6. Further, Appellant contends that “PTFE is not flexible and tension resistant per se,” and the record is devoid of any support for the Examiner’s finding otherwise. Id. at 10–11. Moreover, Appellant argues that Viohl teaches an insulated section that is not per se made from an insulating material, but is a mechanically continuous wire that is selectively insulated. Appeal Br. 6–7. Viohl’s cable, according to Appellant, consists of single, mechanically continuous wires including insulated sections (not insulating sections) and conductive sections, wherein the conductive sections are formed either by bare wire or wire covered with conductive material. Id. at 7–9. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We begin, appropriately, with the claim’s words, specifically, the words of the limitation at issue. We note that neither the Examiner nor Appellant attempt to define or otherwise analyze the scope of the claim 20 limitation, “flexible, tension-resistant.” See Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 6 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that anticipation and obviousness require comparison of the properly construed claims to the available prior art); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e. an interpretation that is consistent with the specification. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). Appellant discloses that, in a preferred embodiment, “the intermediate piece is configured as a flexible, tension-resistant element.” Spec. ¶ 30. Appellant also discloses that “the intermediate piece is preferably produced from an insulating high-temperature material, for example of PFA, PTFE or aramid or generally of an insulating and tension-resistant material.” Id. Appellant further discloses that, as a result of the intermediate piece containing a tension-resistant core and an insulating sheathing surrounding the core, “the intermediate piece is particularly robust, in particular under tensile load, and at the same time particularly flexible.” Id. ¶ 31. Appellant Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 7 also discloses that “the core is preferably made of aramid or alternately of some other tension-resistant and insulating material, and the sheathing is made of PFA.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 144. Importantly, Appellant neither discloses nor claims any particular value or range for either the intermediate piece’s flexibility or tension-resistance. “Flexible” is defined to be “capable of being bent, usually without breaking; easily bent.”3 Something may be described as flexible if it bends without breaking. The ease and amount of bending without breaking is merely related to the degree of flexibility, rather than the presence of flexibility. “Tension” is defined to be “the act of stretching or straining.”4 Thus, something may be described as tension- resistant if it resists stretching or straining. The amount of force resisting stretching or straining and the limit of this resistance are related to the degree of tension-resistance, rather than the presence of this property. Although the Examiner finds that Hellinger fails to explicitly disclose that intermediate piece 9 is flexible and tension-resistant, Hellinger teaches that the inductor cable may be surrounded by a plastic insulator and may be used as a primary or secondary winding of a transformer or device. Hellinger ¶¶ 13, 16. In addition, Hellinger teaches that inductor cable 1 is made up of a plurality of conductors 7 stranded or interwoven together, wherein each individual conductor 7 includes two conductive parts 8 connected via mechanical insulator bridge 9, which are both covered by a plastic insulator layer or tube. Id. ¶¶ 31–32. In order to permit stranding or interweaving of 3 Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flexible, definition of flexible, last accessed October 12, 2021. 4 Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tension#, definition of tension, last accessed October 12, 2021. Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 8 inductors 7, and for winding about a transformer or device, the inductor 7 inherently must have at least some degree of flexibility. Also, Appellant describes that plastic is a suitable insulator material, especially for the insulating cover layer or tube, and, therefore, an ordinary artisan would have understood that Hellinger’s intermediate piece would have some degree of flexibility. With regard to tension-resistance, Hellinger teaches that, “[i]n the event of mechanical loading of the inductor conductor 1 . . . , this leads to a constant or substantially constant distance between the two parts 8.” Id. ¶ 31. In order to achieve maintain constant or substantially constant distance between conductive parts 8 upon mechanical loading, an ordinary artisan would have readily understood that Hellinger’s intermediate piece 9 necessarily would have at least some degree of tension-resistance. Thus, within the context of the broad scope of claim 20’s “flexible” and “tension- resistant” as discussed above, Hellinger alone renders the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Notwithstanding the above discussion, the Examiner turns to Viohl for its teaching that PTFE was a known insulator material for use in Hellinger. Although Appellant contends that PTFE is not flexible and tension-resistant per se, Appellant fails to direct our attention to any supporting evidence in the record for this contention. To the contrary, Appellant discloses that PTFE is a suitable material for the intermediate piece and appears to suggest that PTFE is “an insulating and tension-resistant material.” Spec. ¶ 30; see also ¶ 41. Further, though Appellant attempts to distinguish between Viohl’s use of PTFE as an insulator covering a continuous wire and Hellinger’s mechanical insulator bridge 9 connecting two separated conductors together, such a distinction fails to address the obviousness of substituting a known Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 9 insulator material as the insulator material for Hellinger’s bridge.5 Hellinger does not expressly disclose the material of mechanical insulator bridge 9. At best, Hellinger appears to broadly suggest the use of plastic, though the discussion thereof appears to be primarily directed to the insulating covering layer or tube, rather than mechanical insulator bridge 9. As such, Hellinger recognizes that selection of a suitable insulating material for mechanical insulator bridge 9 was within the ordinary skill in the art. There is no dispute that Viohl teaches that PTFE is a known insulating material. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to have selected PTFE from among the known insulating materials for making Hellinger’s mechanical insulator bridge 9 with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 20 and 22. Rejection 2: Obviousness over Hellinger, Viohl, and Lee The Examiner rejects claims 21, 24, and 25 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl, and further in view of Lee. Final Act. 6–8. Appellant relies on the arguments discussed above with regard to claim 20 5 Although Appellant disputes that Examiner’s interpretation of Viohl’s teaching regarding Viohl’s conductive and insulated sections (Appeal Br. 6– 10; Reply Br. 1–3), we need not resolve this dispute in rendering our Decision. As discussed above, it is sufficient for the combination that Viohl teaches that PTFE is a known insulating material for use in forming inductor conductors. Further, we also need not discuss Mosebach (US 2014/0263289, pub. Sept. 18, 2014) because this reference was not applied in the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, . . . there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of rejection.”). Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 10 and further asserts that Lee fails to remedy the deficiencies in the combination of Hellinger and Viohl. Appeal Br. 12. Because Appellant’s arguments as to claim 20 were not found persuasive as discussed above, there are no deficiencies in the combination of Hellinger and Viohl requiring remedy by Lee. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21, 24, and 25. Rejection 3: Obviousness over Hellinger, Viohl, and Ueda The Examiner rejects claim 23 as unpatentable over Hellinger in view of Viohl, and further in view of Ueda. Final Act. 8. Appellant relies on the arguments discussed above with regard to claim 20 and further asserts that Ueda fails to remedy the deficiencies in the combination of Hellinger and Viohl. Appeal Br. 12. Because Appellant’s arguments as to claim 20 were not found persuasive as discussed above, there are no deficiencies in the combination of Hellinger and Viohl requiring remedy by Ueda. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 23. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Hellinger and Viohl, alone or further in view of either Lee or Ueda, is affirmed. Appeal 2021-000524 Application 15/250,254 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 20, 22 103 Hellinger, Viohl 20, 22 21, 24, 25 103 Hellinger, Viohl, Lee 21, 24, 25 23 103 Hellinger, Viohl, Ueda 23 Overall Outcome 20–25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation