Ex Parte Kachmar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13371899 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/371,899 02/13/2012 Wayne M. Kachmar 02316.3185USU1 3068
142510 7590
M&G CommScope
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
12/30/2016 EXAMINER
PENG, CHARLIE YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
uspto!42510@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE M. KACHMAR
Appeal 2015-001215
Application 13/371,8991
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 13—36, and 53. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The Specification relates to a strength layer assembly surrounding
optical fiber in a fiber optic cable. See Spec. 14.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ADC
Telecommunications, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-001215
Application 13/371,899
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 13—36, and 53 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A fiber optic cable comprising:
an optical fiber;
a strength layer assembly disposed adjacent to the optical
fiber, the strength layer assembly including:
a strength layer including a binder and a
plurality of reinforcing fibers embedded within the
binder, the strength layer having a first surface and
an oppositely disposed second surface and having
circumferential overlap portions that
circumferentially overlap one another by at least 90
degrees;
an outer layer disposed adjacent to the first
surface of the strength layer, the outer layer
including a first conductor portion;
an inner layer disposed adjacent to the
second surface of the strength layer, the inner layer
including a second conductor portion;
an outer jacket surrounding the strength layer assembly.
Appeal Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 13, 24—27, 36, and 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parfree2 in view of
Kachmar3 and Arroyo.4
2 Parfree et al., US 4,239,336, iss. Dec. 16, 1980.
3 Kachmar, US 2009/0297104 Al, pub. Dec. 3, 2009.
4 Arroyo, US 4,730,894, iss. Mar. 15, 1988.
2
Appeal 2015-001215
Application 13/371,899
2. The Examiner rejects claims 13—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kachmar in view of Arroyo.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parfree in view of Kachmar, Arroyo, and
Wargotz.5
4. The Examiner rejects claim 29—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parfree in view of Kachmar, Arroyo, and
Kneeland.6
DISCUSSION
Although Appellant presents arguments with respect to three different
groups of claims, Appellant presents substantially the same arguments with
respect to the rejections of each of the independent claims on appeal. See
Appeal Br. 8—12. Thus, our analysis below with respect to independent
claim 1 is equally applicable to the two rejections of independent claim 13.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Parfree teaches a
cable as claimed, except that Parfree does not disclose a strength layer
including a binder and reinforcing fibers and does not disclose a strength
layer with an overlapping portion of at least 90 degrees as claimed. Final
Act. 4—5. The Examiner relies on Kachmar and Arroyo with respect to these
limitations. Id. Relevant to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds and
concludes:
Arroyo teaches an optical fiber cable having an optical fiber 22
surrounded by two strength layers 141, 142 with each
preferably being a laminate comprising two carrier tapes 143,
144 and a plurality of strength members 145 therebetween and a
5 Wargotz, US 5,329,605, iss. July 12, 1994.
6 Kneeland, US 5,574,815, iss. Nov. 12, 1996.
3
Appeal 2015-001215
Application 13/371,899
jacket 147, wherein the carrier tape/reinforcing sheet 144 wraps
around in substantially two complete circle/revolutions and
therefore has portions that overlap one another by substantially
360°. Arroyo thus suggests the feasibility of additional strength
layer when needed (i.e., when strength consideration outweighs
that of cost and/or size) and it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kachmar’s invention
by extending or continuing the overlap until there is two layers
of strength member surrounding the cable at every point to
create a 360° overlap.
Id. at 5.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to the scope and content of the prior art as applied to claim 1.
See Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 2—5. As discussed below, we are not
persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant argues that Arroyo does not teach a single overlapping
strength layer and that “[sjince Arroyo teach[es] the same overlap (or an
even smaller overlap) compared to Kachmar, Arroyo cannot teach
modifying the overlap of Kachmar to extend or continue the overlap.”
Appeal Br. 8—9 (citing Kachmar Fig. 6; Arroyo Fig. 16B). In essence,
Appellant argues only that Arroyo cannot be used to modify the overlap of
Kachmar because Arroyo’s strength layers already include a small overlap.
See Arroyo Fig. 16B. However, that fact alone is not sufficient to show
error in the Examiner’s conclusion, which relies on Arroyo’s use of multiple
strength layers to modify Kachmar’s overlapping portion such that it extends
around the entire circumference of the layer. We agree with the Examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such
a modification based on Arroyo’s use of additional strength layers in
applications where additional strength is needed. See Ans. 4.
4
Appeal 2015-001215
Application 13/371,899
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. As noted
above, Appellant’s arguments with respect to both rejections of claim 13 are
substantially the same as those discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claim 13. Further, Appellant
does not present any separate arguments with respect to any of the
dependent claims on appeal, and thus, dependent claims 14—36 and 53 fall
with the claim 13.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the rejections of
claims 1, 13—36, and 53.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5