Ex Parte Jiang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2017

13398106 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
13/398,106 02/16/2012 Qibo Jiang 979-578BTK 2414
39600 7590 08/02/2017
SOFF.R fr HAROTTN T T P
EXAMINER
215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1301
NEW YORK, NY 10016
MAYO III, WILLIAM H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2847
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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 QIBO JIANG, JOSHUA KELLER, and PAUL KROUSHL
Appeal 2017-000844
Application 13/398,106
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed February 16, 2012; Non-Final
Office Action (Non-Final Act.) dated January 6, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“Br.”) dated June 8, 2015, and Supplemental Appeal Brief (“Supp.
Br.”) dated August 21, 2015; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated April
6, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Nexans as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000844
Application 13/398,106
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a communications cable, such
as a Local Area Network (LAN) cable. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1) A communications cable, said cable comprising:
a jacket;
a plurality of twisted pairs, each twisted pair having two
insulated conductors twisted around one another: and
a divider arranged between said twisted pairs, wherein
said divider is constructed of a PVC formulation having a
plurality of constituent parts thereof, including at least a
halogenated plasticizer as the primary plasticizer, where the
totality of the constituent parts of said PVC formulation are
selected and combined such that the extruded divider exhibits a
dissipation factor below 0.01 at frequencies between 100 MHz
and 500 MHZ.
REJECTIONS3
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1^4 and 8—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kenny4 and Naseem.5
II. Claims 5—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kenny, Naseem, and Newmoyer.6
DISCUSSION
Each of Rejections I and II is premised on the Examiner’s finding that
Naseem discloses a PVC-based composition which inherently exhibits a
3 Non-Final Act. 2—9; Ans. 2.
4 US 7,329,815 B2, issued February 12, 2008 (“Kenny”).
5 US 4,892,683, issued January 9, 1990 (“Naseem”).
6 US 5,936,205, issued August 10, 1999 (“Newmoyer”).
2
Appeal 2017-000844
Application 13/398,106
dissipation factor below 0.01 at frequencies between 100 MHz and 500
MHZ. Final Act. 6. The Examiner bases that inherency finding on
Naseem’s use of a brominated aromatic ester as plasticizer. Id. The
Examiner contends that “applicant has stated that PVC having brominated
aromatic ester embedded exhibits such [dissipation] characteristics.” Id.
See, also, Ans. 6 (“The only component the Appellant refers to as providing
such a function of the overall dissipation factor being below 0.01 at
frequencies between 100-500MHz is a halogenated ester plasticizer.”)
(citing Spec 12, |2).
Appellants argue that there is no statement in the Specification that
would suggest that the halogenated plasticizer component is solely
responsible for achieving the claimed dissipation factor. Br. 14—15. Rather,
according to Appellants, “the [Specification makes clear that other factors
such as removal of non-halogenated plasticizers” contribute to the
composition’s dissipation property. Id.
We agree with Appellants; the Specification teaches that both
halogenated and non-halogenated plasticizers impact dissipation factor. See
Spec. 8 (“[CJommonly used non-halogenated plasticizing agents render the
FRPVC with poor electrical properties (i.e. high dissipation factors).”); id.
12 (“The present arrangement has provided the unexpected result that the
use of very high quantities of halogenated ester plasticizers and the near or
complete removal of non-halogenated plasticizers actually lead not only
to the required fire resistant properties, but also to sufficient flexibility
while yielding a dissipation factor value for the PVC formulation below
0.01 at frequencies between 100 MHz and 500 MHz.”); id. 10 (“[I]t is
understood that modifications can be made provided that the halogenated
3
Appeal 2017-000844
Application 13/398,106
ester plasticizer remains the primary plasticizer, meaning that the
halogenated ester plasticizer is the majority component of the plasticizer(s)
in the polymer composition.”). Relatedly, claim 1 recites “a halogenated
plasticizer as the primary plasticizer.'1'’ (Emphasis added).
Appellants correctly point out that Naseem’s compositions include
additional plasticizers. Br. 12. See, Naseem 3:20-33; Tables I, II. None of
these additional plasticizers is identified as halogenated. See, id. Each of
Naseem’s reported examples includes plasticizers in amounts that,
collectively, exceed that of brominated aromatic ester. See, Id. Tables I, II.
Based on the evidence presented to us and the foregoing observations,
we are persuaded that the Examiner failed to identify facts sufficient to
support a finding that any of Naseem’s PVC compositions inherently
exhibits the claimed dissipation factor. Nor does the Examiner identify
evidence to show that any of Naseem’s compositions includes a halogenated
plasticizer as the primary plasticizer, as is recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain either Rejection I or Rejection II.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
4