CommScope Connectivity Belgium BVBA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021003479 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

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. 16/600,689 10/14/2019 Philippe COENEGRACHT 02316.4118USC1 9508 142510 7590 03/25/2022 M&G CommScope P.O. Box 2903 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER CONNELLY, MICHELLE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2874 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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): uspto142510@merchantgould.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILIPPE COENEGRACHT __________ Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, BRIAN D. RANGE, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 21-27, and 29-41. Claim 28 is pending and the Examiner objects to this claim as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appellant’s invention is directed to an adapter assembly for fiber optic cable (Spec. ¶ 4; claim 21). 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 COMMSCOPE CONNECTIVITY BELGIUM BVBA. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 2 Claim 21 is illustrative: 21. A fiber optic adapter assembly comprising: an adapter housing; an adapter module floating inside the adapter housing and configured to align ferrules of first and second fiber optic cable connectors; and a single biasing member surrounding a portion of the adapter module inside the adapter housing, the single biasing member biasing the adapter module in a direction toward an exterior end and being compressible in a direction toward an interior end. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 21-27, 29, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as unpatentable over Tran (US 7,044,650 B1, issued May 16, 2006). 2. Claims 30-36, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tran in view of Tsuchiya (JP 52-072240 A published June 16, 1977), Oki (JP 2000-28859, published Jan. 28, 2000), Matsui (JP 57-29023, published Feb. 16, 1982), and Wouters (US 2009/0238520 A1, published Sept. 24, 2009). 3. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tran. 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. Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 3 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”). 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Rejection (1) and § 103 Rejection (3) The Examiner’s findings regarding the subject matter of independent claim 21 and Tran are located on page 8 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds in relevant part that Tran’s pair of linear compression coil springs 56 meet the claim limitation of a single biasing member surrounding a portion of the adapter module 30 (Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds that Tran’s positioning of the springs 56 on opposite sides of the adapter module 30 meets the claim requirement that the biasing member “surround[s] a portion of the adapter module” (Ans. 11-12). The Examiner makes similar findings with respect to independent claim 39 (Final Act. 12). Appellant argues that Tran teaches two springs that cannot reasonably be construed as a single biasing member (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant argues the Specification discloses in paragraph 31 that using a single biasing member is an improvement over conventional adapter assemblies that use a plurality of springs (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant further argues that Tran’s pair of springs does not surround a portion of the alignment sleeve (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant argues that Tran’s pair of springs merely abuts the sides of the alignment sleeve 30 and does not surround a portion of the alignment sleeve (Appeal Br. 13). Citing a Merriam-Webster dictionary, Appellant contends that the plain meaning of “surround” is “to enclose on all sides” (Appeal Br. 14). Based on this definition of “surround,” Appellant argues Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 4 that Tran’s two springs do not enclose all sides of the alignment sleeve 30, and therefore, do not surround the alignment sleeve (Appeal Br. 15). Independent claims 21 and 39 each recites “a single biasing member surrounding a portion of the adapter module.” Appellant describes a biasing member 134 such as a coil spring that is concentrically aligned with the adapter module 136 (Spec. ¶ 31; Fig. 2). The exploded view in Figure 2 shows the biasing member 134 completely surrounding the adapter module 136 when assembled. Appellant argues and we find that Figures 2 and 8 further show that the biasing member 134 when fully assembled would surround the second module end 156 but not surround the first module end 154 (Reply Br. 2). The Specification includes an embodiment where the single biasing member “at least partially surrounds the adapter body (Spec. ¶ 8). In other words, the Specification distinguishes between partial surrounding and surrounding of the adapter module with the biasing member. Accordingly, if a partial surrounding of the adapter body were within the scope of claims 21 and 39, the claims would have recited partially surrounding the adapter module. In light of this distinction between partially surrounding in the Specification and “surrounding” in claims 21 and 39, we construe “surrounding” in these claims to require a complete surrounding of a portion of the adapter module by the single biasing member. In light of our claim construction, we now address the Examiner’s findings that Tran’s two springs constitute a single biasing member that surround a portion of the adapter module (Final Act. 8, 12). The Examiner finds that Tran’s springs are located on opposite sides of the adapter sleeve and therefore surround a portion of the adapter sleeve 30 (Ans. 12). This position is not reasonable in light of our claim construction above. Tran Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 5 does not teach within the meaning of § 102(a)(1) a single biasing member that encloses on all sides the adapter sleeve 30. Tran’s two springs only cover a portion of two sides of the adapter sleeve but do not completely surround a portion of the adapter sleeve. We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 21-27, 29, 37, and 39 over Tran. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 relies on the same findings as the § 102(a)(1) rejection (Final Act. 19-20). Therefore, the § 103 rejection of claim 38 over Tran is reversed for the same reasons that the § 102(a)(1) rejection is reversed. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection (2) The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding independent claim 40 over Tran in view of Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters are located on pages 17-18 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that none of the secondary references (i.e., Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, or Wouters) teaches placing a single biasing member around an adapter module to bias the adapter module and Oki does not bias an alignment sleeve with the coil spring (Appeal Br. 16-20). Appellant argues there is no reason to substitute a single coil spring as taught in the secondary references for Tran’s two springs in the fiber optic coupler (Appeal Br. 21- 22). Appellant argues that making such a substitution would not have been obvious because it would have resulted in removing Tran’s posts 62, 64 that position and hold the two springs in place which would have resulted in spring seating errors (Appeal Br. 21). Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 6 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to show reversible error with the Examiner’s stated rejection. Appellant’s arguments focus on Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters failure to teach placing a coil spring concentrically around an adapter module (Appeal Br. 16-20). However, the Examiner relies on Tran to teach the placement of springs around a periphery of the adapter sleeve 30, not the secondary references (Final Act. 17-18). In particular, the Examiner relies on Tran to teach placing biasing members around an adapter module (Final Act. 17). The Examiner finds that Tran does not teach a single biasing member concentrically aligned with the adapter module (Final Act. 17). The Examiner takes Official Notice, however, that it is known to concentrically place coil springs around adapter modules in optical fiber adapters for the purpose of biasing and aligning elements (Final Act. 17-18). The Examiner relies on Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters to show concentric alignment of coil springs with elements of optical fiber adapters (Final Act. 18). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use a larger compression coil spring concentrically located around the adapter sleeve 30 of Tran in place of Tran’s two smaller springs for the purpose of simplifying the connector structure by minimizing parts with an equivalent coil spring arrangement (Final Act. 18). Moreover, the Examiner relies on Tran’s disclosure at column 7, line 57 to column 8, line 1 for the teaching to use biasing members surrounding an adapter module (Final Act. 17). The Examiner finds that Tran discloses using at least one biasing member at column 7, lines 64-67 (Ans. 16). Although Tran discloses an embodiment that uses two springs, Tran plainly discloses that one biasing member may be used (Tran, col. 7, ll. 57-58). Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 7 Tran further discloses that the biasing member may be “any component, structure, or material that biases the alignment sleeve 30 in the direction of the external end 26 of the receptacle housing.” (Tran, col. 7, ll. 64-67). Tran’s teachings coupled with the Examiner’s Official Notice and teachings of Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters, would have suggested using a single, concentrically arranged coil spring around Tran’s adapter sleeve 30 to provide the desired biasing force. Tran’s disclosure that a single biasing member may be used undermines Appellant’s argument that using a single biasing member would frustrate Tran’s use of alignment posts 64 and double springs. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 30-36 and 40, and 41 over Tran in view of Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters. We note that claims 30-36 depend from claim 21. The Examiner’s treatment of the subject matter of claim 30 includes modifying Tran to use a single biasing means that concentrically surrounds the adapter sleeve (Final Act. 13-15). Accordingly, although claim 30 depends from claim 21, the Examiner’s rationale set forth in the obviousness rejection cures the deficiencies of the § 102(a)(1) rejection in the context of dependent claims 30-36. New Ground of Rejection: 37 CFR § 41.50(b) Claims 21-27, 29, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Tran in view of Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters. We rely on the Examiner’s findings regarding Tran, Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters on pages 17-18 of the Final Action and our findings and determinations in the analysis of the § 103 rejection of claim 40 earlier in this decision. We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 21 on Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 8 page 8 of the Final Action except for the analysis regarding the “surrounding” limitation. We add that Tran teaches that one biasing member may be used and the secondary references disclose the concentric positioning of the coil spring around the various components in an optical fiber adapter (Final Act. 18; Tran, col. 7, ll. 57-58). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to form Tran’s optical fiber adapter using a single coil spring biasing member as taught by Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, and Wouters that surrounds a portion of the adapter sleeve 30 in Tran in order to simplify the connector structure by minimizing parts thereof with a known equivalent coil spring arrangement as determined by the Examiner (Final Act. 14-15). We rely on the Examiner’s findings and conclusions on pages, 17-20 of the Final Action regarding the teachings Tran and the subject matter of claim 38 in combination with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the subject matter of independent claims 21 and 40. We also rely on our findings as stated in the analysis of the § 103 rejection of claim 40 in this decision. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground of Rejection 21-27, 29, 37, 39 102(a)(1) Tran 21-27, 29, 37, 39 38 103 Tran 38 30-36, 40, 41 103 Tran, Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, Wouters 30-36, 40, 41 Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 9 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground of Rejection 21-27, 29, 37-39 103 Tran, Tsuchiya, Oki, Matsui, Wouters 21-27, 29, 37-39 OVERALL OUTCOME 30-36, 40, 41 21-27, 29, 37-39 21-27, 29, 37-39 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 fi nal for judicial review.” 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. . . . Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. Appeal 2021-003479 Application 16/600,689 10 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). ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)