Ex Parte Ciezak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2018

13440016 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/440,016 32915 7590 PANDUIT CORP. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 04/05/2012 Andrew Ciezak 09/18/2018 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. LCB402-CON-4 1599 EXAMINER 18900 Panduit Drive GUSHI, Ross N Tinley Park, IL 60487 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2833 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2018 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 ANDREW CIEZAK, DAVID A. DYLKIEWICZ, and MICHAEL V. DOORHY Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 1 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's maintained rejection of claims 1 and 4---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Panduit Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to plug interface contacts that compensate for cross-talk vectors to obtain a desired level of electrical characteristics. Specification filed April 5, 2012 ("Spec."), Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative: 1. A communication connector for connection with a communication plug, comprising: a housing including a plug receiving aperture; a plurality of plug contacts at least partially within said plug receiving aperture, the plurality of plug contacts comprising a bend section, a contact section opposite the bend section, and at least one compensation section; a support connected to said plurality of plug contacts, said support at least partially within said housing; a plurality of insulation displacement contacts; and a printed circuit board, the plurality of insulation displacement contacts and the plurality of plug contacts being mounted on opposite sides of the printed circuit board, the printed circuit board further comprising a plurality of traces connecting the plurality of contacts to the plurality of insulation displacement contacts, the traces also comprising compensation circuitry, wherein the at least one compensation section comprises first, second, and third compensation sections and further wherein each compensation section is formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be different than that of an adjacent compensation section. Appeal Brief filed February 7, 2017 ("App. Br."), 7. 2 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph as lacking written description. Claims 1 and 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Claims 1 and 4---6 (a) stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Hashim2 in view of Pepe. 3 DISCUSSION4 On this record, having reviewed the maintained grounds of rejection set forth by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments and proffered evidence, and the Examiner's response, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly as to any of the grounds of rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections," citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential)). Written Description The Examiner finds that written description is lacking for the limitation that "each compensation section is formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be different from that of an 2 Hashim et al., US 6,464,541 Bl, issued October 15, 2002. 3 Pepe et al., US 6,558,207 Bl, issued May 6, 2003. 4 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action dated July 29, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner's Answer dated March 24, 2017 ("Ans."). 3 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 adjacent compensation section." Final Act. 2. The Examiner maintains that "[ n Jo 'orientation' of any contact is 'changed' from what is shown in figure 2." Id. The Examiner sets forth that "[t]he 'orientation of the contact' does not change at every bend of the contact wire" ( emphasis omitted) (Ans. 3) and "that "[t]he fact that one compensation section is different from another compensation [section] does not mean that the 'orientation' of one contact to another contact 'changes' in any way" (emphasis omitted) (id. at 6). The Examiner further maintains "[t]he fact that the spacing between contacts at one particular section of the contacts is different from the spacing between contacts at another particular section of the contact does not suggest in any way that the 'orientation of the contact' changes" (emphasis omitted). Id. at 4--5 (citing https://en.oxfordictionaries.com/definition/orient). Appellants contend that "' [ o ]rientation' is the relative physical position or direction of something" and that "[ t ]his includes distance ... [such that] [i]f the distance between two objects changes, then ... the orientation changes." App. Br. 4. Appellants rely on "Fig. 4 of the specification show[ing] a side view of a contact formation in which the contacts are divided into five sections, sections A, B, C, D, and E" ... [including] [compensation] sections C, D, and E." Id. Appellants further contend that sections C, D, and E "would be the first, second, and third compensation sections described in claim 1" and that "the spacing between the contacts in section C is different than that of section D and the spacing between contacts in section Dis different than that of section E." Id. Appellants then argue that "[ s ]ince the spacing is different between the contacts among those sections, then the orientation of the contacts is different among those sections" and that this suffices as written support for 4 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 "each compensation formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be different than that of an adjacent compensation." Id. Appellants' argument fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. The issue is not whether there is a difference between each compensation section and the next within the same plug contact, but rather whether there is a difference in orientation between plug contacts, each of which comprises a first, second, and third compensation section. Claim 1. Appellants' identification of differences in spacing in section C from those in section D and from those in section D from those in section E, thus, does not suffice, and we are directed to no further persuasive argument. Indefiniteness The Examiner sets forth a rejection of the claims as indefinite (Final Act. 3) and maintains the rejection (Ans. 2). Appellants fail to offer any argument contesting the propriety of the indefiniteness rejection. See generally App. Br. In the absence of any argument, we are unpersuaded of any error and sustain proforma the rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action and maintained in the Examiner's Answer. Obviousness Hashim relates to a communication connector that compensates for crosstalk. The Examiner relies on Hashim for disclosing its communication connector having a housing, a plug receiving aperture, a plurality of plug contact at least partially within the plug receiving aperture, and for disclosing the characteristics of the plurality of plug contacts. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Hashim, col. 4, 11. 22-30). The Examiner refers to an "annotated figure below" in the Final Office Action (id.), but this annotated figure was 5 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 inadvertently omitted (Ans. 6-8), despite having been included in the prior office action, dated April 12, 2016 ("Non-Final Act.") (id.; Non-Final Act. 7). The Examiner identifies the "contact section," "bend section," "first [compensation] section," "second [compensation] section," and "third [compensation] section" in the annotated figure. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 7- 8. The Examiner further relies on Hashim for disclosing a printed circuit board 24 comprising a plurality of traces connecting contacts to insulation displacement contacts, which traces also comprise compensation circuitry. Final Act. 4 (citing Hashim, col. 4, 1. 65---col. 5, 1. 35); see also Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Pepe for its disclosure of a similar connector that includes insulation displacement contacts that are held in place via compliant section. Final Act. 4 ( citing Pepe, col. 2, 11. 20-30). The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious [ at the time of the invention] to likewise mount IDC contacts in the vias 34 of the Hashim board 24 protruding rearwardly as taught in Pepe" in order "to facilitate arrangement of the cable wires as taught in Hashim and as was well known in the art." Id. Appellants contend that "[Hashim] does not disclose contacts having a compensation section comprising a first, second, and third compensation section" and that "the Examiner did not even attempt to identify a first, second, and third compensation section." App. Br. 5. Appellants argue further that the Examiner appears to be relying instead on the Board's previous statement "'at least one compensation section' in claim 1 requires the plurality of plug contacts to have at least one section that has a length or any other feature capable of providing some effect in compensating 6 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 capacitive and/or inductive imbalance" despite the discussion being limited to the previously pending claim 1. Id. ( citing Board Decision, dated October 23, 2015, in Appeal No. 2013-008655 ("Dec.")). Appellants further argue such reliance on the Board's statement is not well founded because the previously pending claim 1 did not include that "each compensation section is formed by changing an orientation of a plug contact of the plurality of plug contacts to a second contact of the plurality of plug contacts to be different than that of an adjacent compensation section." Id. at 5---6. Still further, Appellants contend that the Examiner, in relying on the Board's statement, "failed to address every element of claim 1" and, thus, "failed to make a prima facie case for obviousness." Id. at 6. Contrary to Appellants' assertions, the Examiner did identify elements in the cited prior art as first, second, and third compensation sections. Ans. 6-8; see also Final Act. 3--4; Non-Final Act. 3-5, 7. As such, the Examiner addressed each of these elements. As to these identified elements functioning to compensate for capacitive and/or inductive imbalance, Appellants direct us to neither persuasive argument, nor evidence, that the identified structure would not be expected to provide such function within the meaning of the claim. See generally Appeal Br. In effect, the recitation of first, second, and third compensation sections merely sub-divides into three sections the compensating structure identified in Hashim that corresponds to that of the instant application. Compare Hashim, Fig. 3, with Spec., Fig. 4; see also Ans. 7 (annotated figure). On this record, accordingly, we are apprised of no reversible error in the Examiner's reliance on Hashim as disclosing the recited first, second, and third 7 Appeal2017-009769 Application 13/440,016 compensation sections, including that it is "[c]onsistent with Appellant's [sic] definition of the 'orientation' of plug contacts." See Ans. 7-8. On balance, the record of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to all claims on appeal. DECISION The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph for lacking written description is AFFIRMED. The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph for indefiniteness is AFFIRMED. The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8