Ex Parte Larsen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14881342 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/881,342
79207 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
10/13/2015
06/27/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wayne D. Larsen
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.
9457-235TSCT3 9815
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARSHAD C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2831
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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 WAYNE D. LARSEN and BRYAN MOFFITT
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER Administrative Patent Judges.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office Action
dated November 1, 2017 (hereinafter "Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CommScope Inc., the
assignee of this application. Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") 1.
Appeal 2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to communications connectors that may exhibit
reduced crosstalk over a wide frequency range (Specification, ,-J2). As emphasized
in claim 1, the claimed plug, illustrated in Fig. 14, reproduced below, has a printed
circuit board ( 430) with apertures that receive blades ( 440a, 440h) and are aligned
in at least two rows. Figure 14 is shown below:
,m,
... :~--~£~~:'.'.,, ~/xlli
4~~;~~;~~s~q)riflfA~1~1/) :sf/' As .. , ......... / .... ....-
\ ~~'k "-· ·, . ~·"''· , J~ ;-;:.'""";_{,,, t-« .,·~ .N /.
"·,., ~::w!~~~>,(:~:-:(?Jr.lw:;::::::;Y\Li.><~~1
, .. , '~Tu ./ ·, •'.''' . . ... "' '
4~0 , '-. .. ;~ ~~ ... :~:'."-· .. w·:'./:t:.::>···· ~·~('\ 4\~ '} ~,:··,~~~·,;,;{· ,·*V ... ,._
°' '·,... .. * HG. !4
Figure 14 of the instant Specification illustrates a top perspective view of a
communications plug with the plug housing removed
Specification, Fig. 14 (highlighting added).
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are independent. Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with emphases added:
1. An RJ-45 communications plug, comprising:
a housing;
a printed circuit board having a top surface and a bottom
surface that is at least partly within the housing;
2
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
first through eighth plug blades that are configured as first
through fourth pairs of plug blades, each of the plug blades being
electrically connected to the printed circuit board;
first through fourth output contacts that are electrically
connected to the respective first through fourth plug blades and that
are mounted to extend from the top surface of the printed circuit
board; and
fifth through eighth output contacts that are electrically
connected to the respective fifth through eighth plug blades and that
are mounted to extend from the bottom surface of the printed circuit
board,
wherein each of the output contacts is electrically connected to
a respective one of the plug blades, and
wherein the printed circuit board includes a plurality of
apertures and each of the plug blades is mounted in a respective one
of the plurality of apertures, wherein the plurality of apertures are
aligned in at least two rows across a front edge of the printed circuit
board.
16. A plug-jack communications connection, comprising:
a communications plug having a plurality of plug contacts;
a communications jack; and
a first reactive coupling circuit that has a first conductive
element that is part of the communications jack and a second
conductive element that is part of the communications plug.
3
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siemon et al. (US 7,604,515 B2, issued Oct. 20, 2009) in view
ofDoorhy (US 6,305,950 Bl, issued Oct. 23, 2001);
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Siemon and Doorhy and further in view of Lin (US 6,056,586, issued May 2,
2000);
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Siemon and Doorhy and further in view of Ferrill (US 6,116,943, issued Sep. 12,
2000); and
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Admitted Prior Art (APA) in view of Bullivant (US 5,944,535, issued Aug.
31, 1999).
ANALYSIS
The reiections o(claims 1-12
Appellants argue claims 1-12 together as a group. All of the rejections rely,
at least in part, on Siemon and Doorhy. See Final Act. 3-1 O; see generally Answer
(hereinafter "Ans."); see App. Br 4-9. We select claim 1 as representative. Thus,
claims 2-12 will stand or fall with claim 1. See C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on Siemon as disclosing all the elements of claim 1,
except for the plurality of apertures aligned in at least two rows. Final Act. 3-4.
The Examiner finds that Doorhy discloses the plurality of apertures aligned in at
least two rows across a front edge of the printed circuit board and combines the
feature of Doorhy with Siemon "to reduce the overall width of the circuit board."
Id. at 4. The Examiner provides a secondary rationale to rearrange the plurality of
4
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
apertures on the printed circuit board in two rows based on a rearrangement of
parts rationale. Id. at 4-5.
Appellants argue that due to the differences in plugs and jacks, a skilled
artisan would not have modified the plug of Siemon based on the aperture
arrangement in the jack of Doorhy. App. Br. 5-6. Appellants further argue that
"modifying the plug of Siemon to use the aperture arrangement of Doorhy could
cause the plug of Siemon to have insufficient crosstalk, which would render it non-
compliant under the relevant industry standards" ( emphasis added). Id. at 6.
Appellants traverse the rationale to combine Siemon and Doorhy and note
industry standards specify the distance between adjacent plug
contacts, which is necessary to ensure that RJ-45 plugs and jacks that
are manufactured by different vendors will work with each other. As
such, the lateral distance between the first plug contact and the eighth
plug contact is fixed. Since the apertures for the first and eighth plug
contacts of Siemon are directly underneath the respective first and
eighth plug contacts of Siemon, no change in the arrangement of the
apertures would provide a mechanism for reducing the width of the
printed circuit board of the plug of Siemon.
Id. at 8. Finally, Appellants argue against the secondary rationale because
"rearranging the aperture would change the crosstalk coupling between the plug
blades of Siemon, as would be readily understood by the skilled artisan, and hence
would have modified the operation of the device." Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds that "plugs and jacks are just the connectors for RJ-45
communication." Ans. 2. The Examiner notes Appellants have failed to provide
any evidence regarding the proposed insufficient crosstalk. Id. at 3. The Examiner
relies on common sense to clarify how the proposed modification would take less
space. Id. at 4. Finally, the Examiner finds "any contact can be named as first,
second ... or eighth plug contact, and as 1st to 81h contacts are in two rows, their
5
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
respective apertures would also be in two rows, thus it will reduce the overall
width of the circuit board." Id.
The Appellants reply that, "RJ-45 plugs are designed to introduce offending
crosstalk whereas RJ-45 jacks are designed to cancel such offending crosstalk,
Appellants respectfully submit that the skilled artisan would not have looked to
modify the 12.h!g of Siemon based on the RJ-45 jack ofDoorhy." Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellants further argue, "industry standards expressly require that the plug
contacts on either end of the row be spaced apart by a known fixed distance. As
such, while positioning the apertures in two rows may allow the apertures to
extend across a smaller width, the plug contacts themselves must still span a fixed
distance, and hence no reduction in width will be achieved." Reply Br. 3-4.
We agree that a skilled artisan would have understood that jacks and plugs
are both directed to communication connectors and teachings from one relate to
and may be applicable to the other. Ans. 2-3. We are not persuaded by any
argument directed to insufficient crosstalk because claim 1, as currently written,
does not include any limitations directed to specific crosstalk requirements or any
other industry standards specific to crosstalk. The Appellants have provided no
evidentiary support that the proposed modification would result in insufficient
crosstalk and render Siemon unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See App. Br.
6 (merely stating the proposed combination could cause Siemon' s plug to have
insufficient crosstalk). We note that Siemon, column 5, lines 5-51, discloses the
ability to tune the electrical performance of a plug, including different crosstalk
parameters, such that this would have been well within the capabilities of a skilled
artisan. Therefore, we find a skilled artisan would have understood how to modify
Siemon in view of Doorhy and are not persuaded by any of Appellants remaining
arguments directed to insufficient crosstalk or non-compliance with industry
6
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
standards. 2
We further find Appellants' arguments directed to the rationale to combine
Siemon and Doorhy are unpersuasive. Appellants admit "positioning the apertures
in two rows may allow the apertures to extend across a smaller width" ( emphasis
added). Reply Br. 4. While we agree the plug contacts on either end of the row
(i.e., first and eighth contacts as argued above) must maintain a standardized
distance for compatibility, we note that the Examiner's rationale was directed to
the width of the circuit board. We note this reduced width of the circuit board is
not necessarily limited to the area directly above or below the apertures or plug
contacts as argued by Appellants. See App. Br. 8. The reduced circuit board width
could be located elsewhere as a result of shifting components to make better use of
the space vacated by relocating some of the apertures. For example, Doorhy in
Fig. 15, specifically, items Cl3 and C68, illustrates the possibility of placing other
components in the extra space created by using two offset rows. Therefore, we
find Appellants have failed to sufficiently traverse the rationale to combine Siemon
and Doorhy because the arguments directed to fixed distances between contacts are
unpersuasive. Moreover, Appellants provide insufficient evidence related to any
industry standard that pertains to adjacent plug contact distance. See id. at 8;
Reply Br. 4. We do not need to address Appellants' arguments directed to the
secondary rationale of a rearrangement of parts because Appellants have not
overcome the primary rationale relied on by the Examiner.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the
2 Although it is not required for our decision, we note that Siemon (5:23-24) and
Doorhy (3:26-36) disclose their respective connectors are compliant with industry
standards.
7
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
aforementioned disputed limitations. We have considered Appellants' Reply Brief
but find it unpersuasive in rebutting the Examiner's responses.
Because Appellants have failed to sufficiently rebut the Examiner's specific
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness,
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Siemon and Doorhy renders independent claim 1 unpatentable.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The reiection o(claims 13-15
Appellants note the final rejection of claim 13 is essentially identical to the
rejection of claim 1 and incorporate the same arguments. App. Br. 10. We
determine that those arguments are no more persuasive with respect to claim 13
and claims dependent thereon. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 13-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1.
The reiection o(claims 16-20
Appellants argue claims 16-20 together as a group. The rejection relies on
APA and Bullivant. See Final Act. 10-12; see generally Ans.; see App. Br 10. We
select claim 16 as representative. Thus, claims 17-20 will stand or fall with claim
16. See C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner relies on APA, specifically Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8A-8C, as
disclosing all the elements of claim 16, except for a second conductive element
that is part of the communications plug. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds that
Bullivant discloses a reactive coupling circuit and combines the feature of
Bullivant with the AP A for better compensation and "noise free signal or data
transmissions." Id.
8
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
Appellants argue Bullivant discloses a jack as opposed to a plug and does
not disclose the specifically claimed reactive coupling circuit in a plug. App. Br.
11-12. Appellants further argue that nothing in the APA or Bullivant suggests
implementing a reactive coupling circuit that is partly in the jack and partly in the
plug, and that some motivation must be identified in order to set forth a prima facie
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id. at 12-13. Appellants stress that "the Final
Action does not even attempt to explain how the cited references ( or anything else)
teaches or suggests that the modifications suggested in the rejection of Claim 16
would provide 'better compensation' or 'noise free signal or data transmission' to
motivate the skilled artisan to make the modifications." Id. at 13. Finally,
Appellants argue the Examiner relied on impermissible hindsight because "[t]he
only support for the above-described series of modifications to the cited references
necessary to arrive at the invention of Claim 16 are the teachings of the present
application" Id. Appellants stress that "the Final Action has failed to point to any
motivation for the alleged combination." Id.
The Examiner finds that the plug and jack are simply connectors because no
particular structures of the plug and jack are claimed. Ans. 5. The Examiner
clarifies the motivation for the combination of Bullivant and AP A is to provide
"noise free communication at desired frequencies by filtering out the
electromagnetic interference at desired frequencies." Id. at 6. Finally, the
Examiner clarifies that hindsight was not relied upon because the teachings of
AP A and Bullivant and the motivation to obtain a noise free signal are a basic
requirement in data and signal communication industries. Id.
The Appellants reply "one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
recognize the difference between an RJ-45 plug and an RJ-45 jack and would not
confuse one with the other." Reply Br. 5. Appellants clarify that their "argument
9
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
is that 'nothing in either the Admitted Prior Art or Bullivant even remotely
suggests implementing a reactive coupling circuit that is partly in the jack and
partly in the plug.' Notably, the Examiner's Answer does not even attempt to
allege that the Admitted Prior Art and/or Bullivant provide any such disclosure."
Id. at 6.
Similar to the analysis provided above for claim 1, we agree that a skilled
artisan would have understood that jacks and plugs are both directed to
communication connectors and teachings from one related to and may be
applicable to the other. Specifically, we note that the claim does not require any
particular structure for the broadly recited "reactive coupling circuit."3 Therefore,
we find the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "reactive coupling
circuit" appears to include a capacitor or some other circuit that is reactive. See
claim 18. We determine that (1) the Examiner's reliance on Bullivant, specifically
column 4, lines 31-41 explaining that reactive couplings are created by conductive
paths and (2) the Examiner's determination that combining this teaching with the
disclosed plug and jack structure of APA results in the claimed "circuit", to be
consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation. Specifically, we note
paragraph [0006] of the Specification discloses "when a plug mates with a jack, the
proximities and routings of the conductors and contacting structures within the
jack and/or plug can produce capacitive and/or inductive couplings" ( emphasis
added). Therefore, we conclude that the existing plug and jack structure of the
AP A relied upon in the rejection of claim 16, in combination with the reactive
coupling circuit of Bullivant, would have produced a capacitive coupling and
3 We note that although claims 18-20 recite specific structural limitations for the
reactive coupling circuit, Appellants have limited the arguments of this appeal to
claim 16. See App. Br. 10-13.
10
Appeal2018-007855
Application 14/881,342
would meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed "reactive
coupling circuit."
Finally, we agree the Examiner has not relied on impermissible hindsight
because Appellants have not identified any knowledge that was gleaned only from
the disclosure of the instant specification. Although it was not expressly cited by
the Examiner (see Final Act. 11 ), we find the rationale of noise free signals is
supported and suggested by Bullivant, specifically column 2, lines 52-54, which
discusses enabling crosstalk cancellation.
On this record, we determine that Appellants have failed to present
arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the
aforementioned disputed limitations. We have considered Appellants' Reply Brief
but find it unpersuasive in rebutting the Examiner's responses.
It follows that because Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner's
specific factual findings and conclusions sufficiently, Appellants have not
established the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of AP A and
Bullivant renders independent claim 16 unpatentable. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11