Ex Parte Ciechomski et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2019

13014229 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/014,229 01/26/2011 Tomasz A. Ciechomski 21495 7590 06/28/2019 CORNING INCORPORATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1 CORNING, NY 14831 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Hil0-005 1208 EXAMINER JORDAN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2019 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): usdocket@corning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMASZ A. CIECHOMSKI, MARIA PLONEZYNSKA, and TADEUSZ M. TENDERENDA Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mossman (US 2010/0079759 Al, published Apr. 1, 2010) in view of Official Notice, Hultermans (US 5,542,015, issued July 30, 1996), and Cairns (US 5,722,842, issued Mar. 3, 1998). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). WeAFFIRM.2 1 Appellants identify CCS Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 26, 2011, Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed January 20, 2017, the Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a hybrid connector for connecting optical fibers and copper conductors of hybrid cables. Spec. ,-J 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation(s) at issue is( are) italicized. 1. A connector for simultaneously connecting optical fibers and copper conductors, comprising a receptable connector part and a plug connector part, the plug connector part fitting into the receptable connector part during mating of said plug connector part and said receptable connector part; said receptable connector part comprising a receptable housing including first electrical contacts, a first fiber optic ferrule including a first free end terminating at least one first optical fiber, a first ferrule holding member for the first fiber optic ferrule, and a first spring element acting against said first ferrule holding member and being held by a first spring push element; said plug connector part comprising a plug housing including second electrical contacts, a second fiber optic ferrule including a second free end terminating at least one second optical fiber, a second ferrule holding member for the second fiber optic ferrule and a second spring element acting against the second ferrule holding member and being held by a second spring push element; said receptable housing and said plug housing each being a one piece housing, wherein said receptable connector part and said plug connector part are held together in their mated position by a coupling nut wherein the first and second free ends are pressed together by the first and second spring elements to cause terminated end faces of the at least one first optical fiber and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated May 18, 2018, and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 11, 2018. 2 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 at least one second optical fiber to be aligned with one another for axial transmission of at least one optical signal therebetween, said coupling nut having an inside screw thread acting together with an outside screw thread of said receptable housing. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims Appendix). ANALYSIS Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal as to the stated obviousness rejection. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). After review of the Examiner's and Appellants' opposing positions, the applied prior art, and Appellants' claims and Specification, we determine that Appellants' arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer. We offer the following for emphasis only. The Examiner finds that Mossman discloses a hybrid connector for simultaneously connecting optical fibers 163 and electrical conductors 14, the connector comprising: a receptable connector part 42 having an outer screw thread 48 and a housing 42 including first electrical contacts 52 and a fiber optic ferrule 54; and a plug connector part 22 having a housing including second electrical contacts, a second fiber optic ferrule, and a 3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 3 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 coupling nut 28 with an internal screw thread 36 acting together with outer screw thread 48. Final Act. 4-6. The Examiner acknowledges that Mossman fails to teach that the electrical conductors are copper, but takes Official Notice, without dispute, that copper is "a readily-available and frequently used standard material [ for use] as a conducting wire or strand." Id. at 6-7. Therefore, the Examiner concludes, without dispute, that it would have been obvious to use copper as the material for Mossman' s electrical conductors because doing so would yield known and predictable results. Id. at 7. The Examiner also acknowledges that Mossman fails to teach that the first and second fiber optic ferrules include free ends terminating respective optical fibers with ferrule holding members and spring elements for holding the free ends together. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner finds that Hultermans discloses an optical fiber connector latching mechanism providing these features for aligning and holding the free ends of optical fibers together for axial transmission of an optical signal therebetween. Id. at 7-9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use floating or spring-biased ferrules as taught by Hultermans in Mossman's hybrid connector "to enable absorption of a certain tolerance in the spacing" between structures carrying the connected optical fibers. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds Cairns teaches the equivalency with regard to butt-coupling between electrical and optical conductors for signal-carrying purposes and for connectors such as claimed. Id. Appellants argue that Mossman fails to teach fiber optic ferrules. Appeal Br. 12; see also, Reply Br. 12-15. In particular, Appellants contend that the Examiner takes contradictory positions regarding this issue by, on 4 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 the one hand, finding that Mossman's fiber optic terminal pins 54 are ferrules and, on the other hand, conceding hypothetically that these pins are not ferrules. Appeal Br. 13-14. This argument is not persuasive of reversible error. We note that the Examiner "considers almost any structure surrounding an optical fiber to give it strength, structure, and/or protection to be a ferrule." Final Act. 13. Appellants assert that the Examiner provides a definition for "ferrule" as being "a ring or cap usually of metal put around a slender shaft ... to strengthen it or prevent splitting" and "a usually metal sleeve used especially for joining or binding one part to another." Appeal Br. 23. This definition is consistent with Appellants' Specification. Spec. ,-J 44 ("[ e ]nds of optical fibers held and terminated by said fiber optic ferrule 18 ... as well as ends of optical fibers held and terminated by said fiber optic ferrule 24"). Thus, we interpret a ferrule, in the context of this appeal, as any ring, cap, or sleeve-like structure placed around an optical fiber to strengthen it or for joining fibers together. Mossman teaches that fiber optic strands are fed into each of the receptable and plug connector parts that terminate in fiber optic terminal pins within the part housings. See Mossman, Figs. 1 and 2; ,-J,-J 13-15. While Mossman admittedly is not especially clear how the optical fibers connect through the terminal pins, it is clear that the housings include structures that a placed around the fibers for joining them together. As such, Mossman teaches ferrules according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term. Nonetheless, as discussed by the Examiner and below, even if Mossman fails to teach optic fiber ferrules, Appellants do not dispute that each of Hultermans and Cairns teach such ferrules. 5 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 Appellants further argue that Mossman' s optic fiber terminal pins cannot simultaneously embody two elements, i.e., the first and second fiber optic ferrules, nor can the electrical conductor terminal pins be both copper and optical. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner determines, the ordinary artisan would have reasonably interpreted Mossman as teaching optic fiber terminal pins 54 and electrical conductor pins 52 on each of the connector parts 22, 42, even though only one set is shown on the plug connector part, because each connector part terminates a respective hybrid optical fiber and electrical conductor cable. Appellants next argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of Mossman, Official Notice, Hultermans, and Cairns is contradictory. Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 16-19. Appellants contend that this combination would omit an essential feature of claim 1, namely the electrical contacts. Appeal Br. 17. In addition, Appellants contends that it is unclear how it would have been obvious to use Mossman's electrical conductor pins with Hultermans' fiber optic ferrules. Id. at 18-19. Appellants further urge that it is unclear how the alleged equivalency between electrical and optical conductors provides butt-coupling for the conductors shown in Mossman. Id. at 19. Indeed, Appellants contend that Cairns does not disclose the equivalence of optical and electrical strands. Id. at 19-21. This argument is also not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants' argument misapprehends the Examiner's proposed combination. Each of Mossman, Hultermans, and Cairns teaches a hybrid connector for simultaneously connecting both optical fibers and electrical conductors. Mossman Abstract ("A connector apparatus for use with combined electrical and fiber optic cables"); Hultermans 2:55-57 ("an optical connector 6 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 particularly suitable for use in a hybrid connection system comprised of both optical and electrical connectors"); Cairns Abstract ("a plug unit and a receptacle unit of, an electrical, fiber-optic, or hybrid electro-optical connector unit"). The Examiner's proposed modification of Mossman to include spring-biased fiber optic ferrules both for terminating the respective optical fibers feeding into the receptable and plug connector parts and for pressing them together for axial transmission of an optical signal as taught in Hultermans would necessitate replacement of Mossman's fiber optic terminal pins 54, but would otherwise retain structure for electrically connecting the respective electrical conductors together. Because claim 1 does not recite any specific structure for the electrical contacts in each connector part, Mossman' s electrical conductor pins 52 need not be modified. Thus, the Examiner's proposed combination does not omit electrical contacts. With regard to Appellants' view that modification of Mossman's electrical conductor pins with Hultermans' fiber optic ferrules is contradictory, we note that Cairns teaches that coaxial electrical conductors and optical fibers may be fed through the same ferrule to provide butt- coupling between respective like conductors. Cairns 2:49-62. Indeed, it is this interchangeability between electrical conductors and optical fibers that the Examiner refers to when discussing the equivalence between these two types of conductors. Thus, the ordinary artisan would have provided both electrical conductors and optical fibers through the ferrules to provide butt- coupling between the conductors and fibers of each connector part in view of Cairns to readily connect Mossman' s coaxial electrical conductors and 7 Appeal 2018-007287 Application 13/014,229 optical fibers. Appellants' arguments do not identify error in the Examiner's findings or obviousness conclusion, in this regard. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Examiner's Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, and 24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). AFFIRMED 8