Tyco Electronics Nederland BV

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

14584230 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
14/584,230 12/29/2014 Jacob Arie Elenbaas 02316.3968USD1 8052
23552 7590 05/29/2020
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
JORDAN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
USPTO23552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB ARIE ELENBAAS and JARNO VERHOEVEN
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
Technology Center 2800
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 11–20, 22, and 30–34. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TE Connectivity
Nederland B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a sealing enclosure for a connector on a
cable, such as a standardized fiber-optic connector.” Spec. 1. Claim 11,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A sealing enclosure comprising:
a fiber optic connector adapted to be mounted on an end
of a cable;
an inner body having a connector volume, the fiber optic
connector being received within the connector volume, the
inner body including a forward facing plug end that is open in a
forward direction, the inner body including at least one anti-
rotation element;
an outer body surrounding the inner body and being
movable relative thereto, a forward section of the outer body
having a locking element of the bayonet type, the locking
element provided on an interior side of the outer body;
a mating section provided with at least one locking
element that matches the at least one locking element of the
outer body to enable a bayonet-type locking with the outer
body, the mating section also including an anti-rotation element
that mates with the anti-rotation element of the inner body to
prevent relative rotation between the inner body and the mating
section, the mating section including an annular collar having
an annular seal on its outer circumference for providing a seal
between the mating section and the outer body;
a spring that is compressed axially between the outer and
inner bodies during the bayonet type locking between the outer
body and the mating section; and
the outer body including an inner shoulder that faces in a
forward direction, the inner shoulder opposing a rearwardly
facing surface of the inner body, the forward section of the
outer body having a forward end positioned a first axial
distance in front of the inner shoulder, a rearward section of the
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
3
outer body defining a rear end positioned a second axial
distance behind the inner shoulder, and the second axial
distance having a greater magnitude than the first axial distance.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sedor US 2006/0089049 A1 Apr. 27, 2006
Lu US 2008/0310796 A1 Dec. 18, 2008

REJECTION
Claims 11–20, 22, and 30–34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sedor and Lu. Final Act. 4–6.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Sedor and Lu teach all limitations of claim 11.
Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner finds Sedor discloses most limitations of
claim 11. Final Act. 4–6. In particular, the Examiner finds Sedor’s O-ring 48
(see, e.g., Sedor Figs. 3, 16, 18) discloses “a spring that is compressed
axially between the outer and inner bodies during the bayonet type locking
between the outer body and the mating section” as recited in claim 11. Final
Act. 5.
Among arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
“Sedor’s O-ring is an O-ring, not a spring, particularly since Sedor
refers separately to spring forces within the LC connectors 70, which are
understood in the art to be achieved by an actual spring disposed within the
LC connector, not a sealing gasket such as an O-ring.” Appeal Br. 17 (citing
Sedor ¶ 53). “Sedor’s LC connector springs are internal to the LC connector
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
4
70, and therefore cannot be compressed between an inner body and outer
body, as the claimed inner body receives the connector and the outer body
surrounds the inner body.” Appeal Br. 17–18.
In response, the Examiner explains “[a]s the O-ring 48 of Sedor is
seen as an O-ring known to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellant’s invention, such O-rings providing a resilient restoring force (a
fundamental quality of springs).” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains
“Sedor’s disclosure of additional structures does impair their knowledge by
the person of ordinary skill in the art or the examiner’s use thereof in
constructing obviousness rejections.” Ans. 4.
In Reply, Appellant argues “Sedor’s O-ring cannot read on the axially
compressed spring limitation of the present claims.” Reply Br. 6.
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
First, claim 11 recites “a spring that is compressed axially between the
outer and inner bodies during the bayonet type locking between the outer
body and the mating section.”
Sedor discloses “[r]eferring to FIG. 3, in order to assemble plug-side
42 of industrial connector 40, plug sealing gasket 46 and O-ring 48 are first
installed onto the front and rear sides of LC connector holder 50,
respectively, creating an LC connector holder assembly.” Sedor ¶ 43.
Sedor further discloses
When plug-side 42 of industrial connector 40 is mated with
another LC connector 70 at the far side of LC adapter 90, this
will position the plug-side ferrule endface with more precision.
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
5
This, in turn, will ensure a tighter range of spring forces in LC
connectors 70, which will ultimately provide more reliable
optical measurements.
Sedor ¶ 53.
We interpret Sedor’s O-ring 48 as not falling within the scope of the
“spring” recited in claim 11 because we do not interpret Sedor’s disclosures
to support a finding that O-ring 48 is “compressed axially” as required by
claim 11. Sedor’s disclosure at paragraph 43 does not provide any evidence
that O-ring 48 may be compressed axially. Further, Sedor’s disclosure at
paragraph 53, by referring to spring forces in LC connectors 70, suggests
that O-ring 48 is not “compressed axially” as required by claim 11. In short,
Sedor’s O-ring 48 (see, e.g., Sedor Figs. 3, 16, 18) is not a “spring” as
recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–20, 22,
33, and 34, which depend from claim 11.
Independent claim 30 also recites “a spring that is compressed axially
between the outer and inner bodies during the bayonet type locking between
the outer body and the mating section.” We, therefore, also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 30.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 32,
which depend from claim 30.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
Appeal 2018-007561
Application 14/584,230
6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
11–20, 22,
30–34
103(a) Sedor, Lu 11–20, 22,
30–34

REVERSED