Ex Parte Buenz

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2017

13488761 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2017)

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. 9833-369 8475 EXAMINER DUVERNE, JEAN F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/488,761 06/05/2012 79207 7590 0: MYERS BIGEL, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 Lawrence J. Buenz 03/23/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAWRENCE J. BUENZ Appeal 2016-003901 Application 13/488,761 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, and 14—20.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 5, 2012; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Jan. 22, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated July 16, 2015; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated Dec. 3, 2015. 2 Appellant identifies CommScope Technologies LLC as the real party in interest. Br. 3. 3 The Examiner finds each of claims 5, 12, and 13 allowable but for its dependence from a rejected base claim. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2016-003901 Application 13/488,761 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal regards an adapter which “enables conversion of both of the inner and the outer conductors of an existing radio frequency coaxial cable to a single combined high current capacity electrical power conductor.” Br. 4. Particularly, the subject adapter is configured such that “all of the conductive material of each RF coaxial cable” is “utilized as a combined single conductor for electrical power transmission.” Spec. 4. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. An adapter for coupling a coaxial interface to a power conductor, comprising: a body with a connector end and a conductor end; a conductor junction at the conductor end dimensioned to couple with the power conductor; a mating surface at the connector end dimensioned to couple with the coaxial interface; the conductor junction, an outer conductor contacting portion of the mating surface and an inner conductor contacting portion of the mating surface coupled together electrically. Claim 10 also is written in independent form, and, like claim 1, requires a conductor junction and a mating surface having inner and outer conductor contacting portions, all of which are electrically coupled together. Br. 19-20 (Claims App’x). REJECTION4 Claims 1—4, 6—11, and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mahoney.5 4 Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2 5 US 7,306,484 Bl, issued Dec. 11, 2007 (“Mahoney”). 2 Appeal 2016-003901 Application 13/488,761 DISCUSSION In reaching the anticipation determination, the Examiner relies on Mahoney’s Figure 2B, reproduced below. Figure 2B depicts an adapter coupled to a dc barrel connector plug and an RF connector. Mahoney col. 2,11. 53—54. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Mahoney’s adapter includes a “conductor junction at 120, an outer conductor at 48 contacting portion of the mating surface (50) and an inner conductor contacting portion at 44 of the mating surface coupled together electrically.” Final Act. 2 (citing Mahoney col. 6,11. 3—17). As we understand the Examiner’s explanation of the rejection, the Examiner finds that elements 120, 44, and 48 are electrically coupled and, on that basis, meet the recitation in claim 1 of a “conductor junction, an outer conductor contacting portion of the mating surface and an inner conductor contacting portion of the mating surface coupled together electrically.” 3 Appeal 2016-003901 Application 13/488,761 Appellant points out that Mahoney’s element 48 is an outer conductor which is electrically insulated from conductor junction 120. Br. 11 (citing Mahoney col. 6,11. 18—37). Appellant contends, therefore, that the Examiner’s finding that Mahoney’s elements 48 and 120 are electrically coupled is incorrect. Id. We agree. Mahoney identifies element 48 as a ground contact, such that ground contact 48, sleeve 54, and housing 36 form an integral ground conductor. Mahoney col. 6,11. 3—11. Separately, pin contacts 44 of pin conductor 46 are electrically integrated with conductor 120 to define a single integral primary conductor. Id. at col. 6,11. 18—27. Appellant correctly points out that these ground and primary conductors are electrically separated by an insulator 58. Br. 10. See a Iso Mahoney col. 5,11. 9-14. In use, Mahoney’s adapter separately provides the above-described ground and primary conductor connections with corresponding ground and primary connections of a two-conductor dc barrel connector plug 18. Id. at col. 3,11. 19-21. On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner’s finding that Mahoney’s elements 120, 44, and 48 are electrically coupled is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the rejection is not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—11, and 14—20 is reversed. REVERSED 4