Ex Parte Larsen et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 201914881342 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation