Panduit Corp.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 28, 20212021000113 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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. 16/400,530 05/01/2019 Richard J. Pimpinella LCB986 1631 32915 7590 09/28/2021 PANDUIT CORP. 18900 Panduit Drive Tinley Park, IL 60487 EXAMINER PEACE, RHONDA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2021 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): patents@panduit.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD J. PIMPINELLA __________ Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM and enter a New Ground of Rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appellant’s invention is directed to optical fiber connectors, specifically multi-fiber array connectors having an angle polished ferrule designed to increase optical return loss (Spec. ¶ 2). 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 Panduit Corp. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 2 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A fiber optic cable assembly, comprising: a plurality of substantially parallel optical fibers formed into a ribbon, the ribbon extending in a longitudinal direction and having first and second ends; a termination assembly attached at each of the first and second ends of the ribbon, wherein each of the termination assemblies include a body and a ferrule, the body having a key on an upper surface thereof, and when viewed facing the contact surface with the key projecting upwardly, the outermost one of the fiber positions located on the left side is designated as fiber position 1 and the opposite outermost fiber position is designated position n, and wherein when the contact surface of the first end is viewed with the termination key up, optical fiber 1 is located in position 1, and wherein the contact surface of the second end when viewed with the termination key up, optical fiber 1 is located in position n, and wherein, the ferrule has a polished contact surface that exposes ends of the optical fibers, and the contact surface forms an oblique angle relative to a plane normal to axes defined by the fibers, and wherein either (a) each contact surface is slightly rotated clockwise, or (b) each contact surface is slightly rotated counter-clockwise with respect to the normal of the plane defined by the fiber array, so that when the second end of one cable assembly is mated to the first end of a second cable assembly in Key-Up to Key-Up Method B adapter configuration, angled ferrule surfaces abut. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Livingston (US 7,184,635 B2, issued Feb. 27, 2007). Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter of claim 1 only (Appeal Br. 4–5). Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 3 In interpreting claim 1 we determine that the claim fails to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the normal of the plane defined by the fiber array.” Because there is no prior recitation of a fiber array or a plane formed by the fiber array, the claim is rendered indefinite. As such, it is not clear what plane is defined by the fiber array or where “the normal” to such a plane is located. We note that claim 1 recites “a plurality of substantially parallel optical fibers formed into a ribbon, the ribbon extending in a longitudinal direction.” However, claim 1 fails to recite that the parallel, longitudinally extending fibers define a plane. In fact, an array of parallel, longitudinally extending fibers may define a plurality of planes depending on the arrangement of parallel fibers in the array. Therefore, we exercise our discretion and enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for claims 1–11 as failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. For the purposes of this appeal, however, we provide a conditional interpretation of “the normal of the plane defined by the fiber array” and so decide the merits of the § 102(a)(1) rejection. We conditionally construe “the normal of the plane defined by the fiber array” as requiring a perpendicular line extending from a plane that bisects in the longitudinal direction each of the optical fiber axes, based on a single row of fibers as shown in the drawings. Our conditional construction is reasonable based upon Appellant’s Specification which describes Figures 6 and 7 as showing a normal 620 to a plane formed by the fiber array 607/707 (Spec. ¶ 25). Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 4 FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 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) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Appellant argues Livingston does not disclose each contact surface being slightly rotated clockwise or counter-clockwise “with respect to the normal of the plane defined by the fiber array.” (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues that the normal defined by the fiber array is a line parallel to a line starting above the connector, going through the top of the connector, and then extending through the bottom of the connector (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends that any rotated surface with the respect to the normal would result in one that is slightly tilted to the left or right (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds, inter alia, Livingston teaches in column 5, lines 8–15 and column 6, lines 44–67 that plane FS is normal to the axes of fibers 14 and the contact surface 28 is angled slightly upwardly relative to plane FS (Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 3–4). In other words, Livingston’s plane FS is normal to the plane formed by the axes of the optical fibers 14 in the ribbon 12. Livingston’s Figure 1B shows a side view of the optical fiber connector where the ribbon 12 extends into the page and the plane FS is normal to the plane defined by the optical fiber axes in the ribbon 12. Livingston’s plane FS includes a normal of the plane defined by Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 5 the fiber array. Livingston’s Figure 1B shows the contact surface is angled about 8° about the normal in the plane FS in a clockwise direction. Appellant’s argument that claim should be construed as limited to the embodiment shown in Figures 6 and 7 described in paragraph 25 of the Specification is contrary to the full disclosure of the Specification (Reply Br. 4). Rather, the Specification discloses that the invention is not limited to the precise construction and compositions disclosed and may include various modifications or changes (Spec. ¶ 26). Moreover, as noted above, Livingston teaches a plane FS with a normal that would meet the claim requirements as presently drafted. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1–11 over Livingston and we enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 1–11. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground of Rejection 1–11 102(a)(1) Livingston 1–11 1–11 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Appeal 2021-000113 Application 16/400,530 6 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . 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) and 41.50(f). ORDER AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation