Ex Parte Giraud et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2016

12953118 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/953,118 11/23/2010 William J. Giraud 21495 7590 04/05/2016 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. HI10-038B 2927 EXAMINER LEPISTO, RYAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/05/2016 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 WILLIAM J. GIRAUD, BRIAND. KINGSBURY, M. HEATH RASMUSSEN, and DIANA RODRIGUEZ Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 1 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1through5, 9 through 13, 16 through 27, 29 through 32, and 34 through 41. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We REVERSE. 1 Application 12/953,118("Application'l18"), filed November 23, 2010). 2 Final Action mailed May 3, 2013 ("Final Act."). Claims 6 through 8, 14, 15, 28, and 33 stand withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner as being drawn to a nonelected species. Final Act. 3. Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 INTRODUCTION The appealed subject matter relates to a fiber optic system comprising a removable "front" section that connects to the front end of a fiber optic housing, the housing defining at least one interior chamber that is used to support a fiber optic equipment. The removable front section itself defines an "interior chamber" that is used to support at least one fiber management device that manages, e.g., routes, one or more optical fibers that are connected to the fiber optic equipment supported in the fiber optic housing. '118 Specification ("' 118 Spec."), i-f [0023]. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative independent claim 1 of Application' 118, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief3 (bracketed reference characters of '118 Specification Figure 24, which is reproduced below, indentations, and emphasis added): 1. A fiber optic system, comprising: a fiber optic housing [276] defining at least one interior chamber [279] configured to support fiber optic equipment; and a removable front section [278, 278A, 278B] connected to the fiber optic housing [276] and defining at least one front section interior chamber [281] coupled to the at least one interior chamber [279] of the fiber optic housing [276]; wherein the removable front section [278] is configured to support at least one fiber management device [280, 356] to manage one or more optical fibers connected to fiber optic equipment disposed in the fiber optic housing [276]. 3 Appeal Brief filed on November 05, 2013 ("App. Br."). 2 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 Fig. 24 is shown below: Fig. 24 illustrates a front perspective view of an exemplary fiber optic housing (276) and perspective views of exemplary removable front versions (278, 278A, 278B), having a top and bottom panels 298 and 290, respectively. An opening 270 is disposed on left and right side panels of the removable front section 278, which includes a flexible edge protection piece 268, as exemplified in removable front section 278A. Removable 3 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 front section 278 comprises a top portion 282 and a bottom portion 284. A rubber seal 286 can fit in the openings 270, as exemplified in removable front section 278B. The "front jumper management devices" 280 aid in the routing and management of the optical fibers connected to the fiber optic equipment supported in the fiber optic housing 276. The routing clips 356 route optical fibers connected to the fiber optic equipment supported in the fiber optic housing 276. Id. at i-fi-1 [00172]-[00176]. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection in the Examiner's Answer,4 which are before us on appeal: 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 through 11, 13, 16 through 18, 23 through 26, 29 through 32, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Diaz5 Â· ' 2. Claims 1, 3, 23 through 25, and 37 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Knudsen6; 3. Claims 2, 5, 12, 19, 20, 27, 36, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Diaz and Giraud7; and 4 Examiner's Answer mailed on December 3, 2013 ("Ans.") at 2-5; Final Act. 4---9 .. 5 United States Patent No. 7,027,706 B2, issued to Randall J. Diaz et al. on April 11, 2006 (hereinafter "Diaz"). 6 United States Patent No. 6,631,237 B2, issued to Clinton M. Knudsen et al. on October 7, 2003 (hereinafter "Knudsen"). 7 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0111810 Al by William JM Giraud et al., published on May 26, 2005 (hereinafter "Girard"). 4 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 4. Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the collective teachings of Diaz, Giraud, as applied to claim 19 above, further combined with Henschel8. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is the proper interpretation of the terms "removable front section" and "front section interior chamber" (emphasis added), as recited in claims 1 and 23. DISCUSSION In making a patentability determination, analysis must begin with the question, "what is the invention claimed?" because "[ c ]laim interpretation ... will normally control the remainder of the decisional process." Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The words of a claim are generally given their broadest "ordinary and customary meaning" consistent with the Specification, where "the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the application." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en bane); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions 8 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0174996 Al by James J. Henschel et al., published on September 18, 2003, (hereinafter "Henschel"). 5 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.") Rejection 1, Anticipation by Diaz. In rejecting independent claims 1 and 23 as anticipated by Diaz, the Examiner finds that Diaz teaches a fiber optic system, as illustrated in Diaz Fig. 2, comprising a "removable front section (100, column 2 lines 64-68) [i.e., a "cable management system 100" as illustrated in Diaz Fig. 1] ... defining at least one front section interior chamber . . . coupled to the interior chamber of the housing (see Fig. 2)." Final Act. 4. Appellants urge that the Diaz "'cable management element 100' does not provide a housing that defines any interior chamber ... the 'cable management element 100' of Diaz is an open frame ... ". App. Br. 7. According to Appellants (id., at 8, emphasis added) [i]t is apparent from Figure 1 of Diaz that the 'cable management system 100' does not define a 'front section interior chamber,' as required by Claim 1. For example, the 'cable management system 100' of Diaz is primarily a flat shelf cantilevered out from two triangular support members. There is simply no 'chamber' formed by this structure that is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that in the Diaz cable management system 100, the "'front section interior chamber' ... is defined as the shaded cubic area [shading added to Diaz Fig. 1 by the Examiner] below defined by the sides of the component. 6 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 "This area between the walls of the [Diaz] front section (100) define a 'front section interior chamber' since appellant's ['sic] claim [1] does not define any number of wall required to achieve an interior chamber." Ans. 2, 3. The Examiner refers to '118 Specification Fig. 24, which illustrates the removable front section 278A as including "an open front and removable sides that form a 'C' shape that appellant[s] equates [sic] to an 'interior chamber' even though the component does not form an enclosed cube." Id., at 3. However, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, (1988), pp. 704 and 232, respectively, the term "interior" may be defined as "situated within; on the inside; inner," and the term "chamber" may be defined as "a room," or "any enclosed space; a compartment." Generally, a "chamber" need not be completely enclosed: a room with open doors and windows is still considered to be a "chamber." Thus, given the ordinary meaning of these terms, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the front section "interior chamber" recited in claims 1 and 23 refers to any enclosed space that is situated within the removable front section. This interpretation is consistent 7 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 with some of the embodiments in the '118 Specification, e.g., in Fig. 24, the removable front section 278B has an interior chamber 281, which is defined by the space situated within the top panel 298, the bottom panel 290, the right and left side panels having openings 270 fitted with rubber seal 286, each of which is attached to both the top and bottom panels, of the front section 278B. Claims 1 and 23 need not encompass all embodiments described in the '118 Specification. In contrast, as urged by Appellants, the Diaz "cable management element 100" is a flat shelf cantilevered out from two triangular support members. The Diaz cable management element 100 is an open structure; it has no top panel, and no front or back panel that can be described as enclosing a chamber. Moreover, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any disclosure in the '118 Specification, which defines the term front section "interior chamber" so broadly as to encompass such an open structure as shown in the Diaz cable management element 100. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner's findings that Diaz teaches a fiber optic system comprising a removable front section, as recited in claim 1, and a method of operating said optical system, as recited in claim 23. Rejections 3 and 4, Obviousness over the collective teachings of Diaz and Giraud, alone or further combined with Henschel. The additional prior art references used for rejecting some of the dependent claims on appeal in rejections 3 and 4 were not relied upon by the Examiner to remedy the deficiencies in Diaz discussed supra. Accordingly, rejections 3 and 4 are also reversed. 8 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 Rejection 2, Anticipation by Knudsen. In rejecting independent claims 1 and 23, as anticipated by Knudsen, the Examiner finds that Knudsen teaches a fiber optic system comprising a "removable front section (132, 136, 137) [as illustrated in Knudsen Figs. 6 and 7] connected to the fiber optic housing (12) and defining at least one front section interior chamber . . . coupled to the interior chamber of the housing (12) (see Fig. 4) ... wherein the removable front section (132, 136, 137) is tool-lessly connectable to and removable from the housing (12) via a hinge (104) (column 3 lines 38-41)." Final Act. 6. Appellants urge that Knudsen "Figures 6 and 7 ... clearly show that the 'top and bottom housings 136 and 137' are not removable, but are instead securely connected to 'cabinet 12' via a bulkhead hinge 104" (emphasis added in the original). App. Br. 10, 11. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner holds that claims 1 and 23 do "not require the [removable] front section be totally detach[ able] from the housing, only that it is removable from the housing ... [the Knudsen] front section swings out on a hinge so as to be 'removed' from resting inside from the housing. The fact that a hinge connects to a portion of the cabinet does not mean the front section does not swing out of the housing, thus reading on 'removable."' Ans. 4. However, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, (1988), p. 1136, the term "removable" may be defined as "that can be removed," and the term "removed" is defined as being "remote; distant; disconnected: with from." Thus, given the ordinary meaning of the 9 Appeal2014-003691 Application 12/953,118 term "removable" and the context in which the term "removable" is used (in reference to the entire front section, not part of the front section), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that claims 1 and 23 require that the "removable front section" has the property of being entirely removed or disconnected from the fiber optic housing. A door is not "removed" from a room by merely opening the door. This interpretation is consistent with embodiments in the '118 Specification, e.g., in Fig. 24, the removable front section 278B is shown to be detachable from the front end of the fiber optic housing 276. In contrast, as urged by Appellants, in the Knudsen fiber optic system, the front section 132 is firmly attached to the housing 12 via a "bulkhead hinge." The Examiner has not premised the anticipation rejection on any credible evidence showing that the Knudsen "bulkhead hinged" front section 132 can be entirely removed or disconnected from the housing 12 as required in claims 1 and 23. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner's findings that Knudsen teaches a fiber optic system comprising a "removable" front section, as recited in claim 1, and a method of operating said optical system, as recited in claim 23. ORDER In view of the foregoing, we REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 9 through 11, 13, 16 through 18, 23 through 26, 29 through 32, 34, 35, and 37 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b), and of claims 2, 5, 12, 19 through 22, 27, 36, and 41under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 10