Ex Parte Lutzen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

11202108 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

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. 11/202,108 08/12/2005 Jon A. Lutzen 49382 7829 1609 7590 11/15/2012 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. 1300 19TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,, DC 20036 EXAMINER CAZAN, LIVIUS RADU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3729 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2012 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 JON A. LUTZEN, RUDOLPH A. MONTGELAS, and ALAN C. MILLER ____________________ Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOSIAH C. COCKS, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jon A. Lutzen et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 11. Claims 2 and 7-9 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM. The Claimed Subject Matter According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates “to a crimping tool for and a method for forming a non-adhesive strain relief connector for a fiber optic cable.” Spec. 2, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of forming a strain relief connector, comprising the steps of extending a fiber optic cable through a deformable sleeve, the fiber optic cable having a cover with a first end and a second end, the cover being unitarily formed as a one-piece member and the first end having a radially outwardly extending conical portion tapering from a free end thereof to a connection of the conical portion to a remaining portion of the cover, the sleeve having a first shoulder disposed internally to the sleeve, abutting a portion of the conical portion against said first internal shoulder and abutting said second end of said cover against a second internal shoulder of said sleeve, and compressing the sleeve to crimp the sleeve to cover to form a compressed portion, with said compressed portion of said cover substantially filling an entire inner volume of said compressed portion of the sleeve, said first and second internal shoulders being outside said compressed portion of the sleeve. Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 3 Evidence The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Burger Carlisle Brock US 4,140,365 US 5,418,874 DE 3005918 A1 Feb. 20, 1979 May 23, 1995 Sep. 3, 1981 1 Rejections The Examiner makes the following rejections: I. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brock and Burger. II. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brock, Burger, and Carlisle. 2 OPINION Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part: “abutting said second end of said cover against a second internal shoulder of said sleeve, and compressing the sleeve . . . to form a compressed portion, . . . said first and 1 The Examiner additionally relies on a machine translation of Brock obtained September 9, 2008 (“Brock translation”). Ans. 3. 2 The Examiner’s Answer includes titles that mistakenly state that claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Brock and that claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over only Brock and Carlisle. Ans. 3-4. It is clear, however, from the actual discussion in the Examiner’s Answer, as well as from the Final Rejection, that this was merely a clerical error and that all pending claims are rejected under § 103(a) – claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Brock and Burger, and claims 3 and 4 as unpatentable over Brock, Burger, and Carlisle. Ans. 3-5; Final Rej. 2-3. Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 4 second internal shoulders being outside said compressed portion of the sleeve.” The Examiner relies on Brock as teaching all of the features recited in claim 1 except for the second internal shoulder. Ans. 4 (citing Brock, Figure 2). The Examiner relies on Burger as teaching the use of a second internal shoulder, and concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate a second internal shoulder in Brock so as to even more reliably control the insertion depth of the cover into the sleeve. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that modifying Brock to include the second internal shoulder of Burger as proposed by the Examiner would not result in the second shoulder being outside of the compressed portion of the sleeve, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. More specifically, Appellants argue the following: [In Brock], the end of the collet [cover] 10 is positioned at the end of the squeezing range [compressed portion] 2 of the pin [sleeve] 1. Accordingly, being at the end of the squeezing range 2, modifying the connector of the Brock reference in view of the Burger patent to have a second internal shoulder against which the end of the collet 10 abuts would result in the second internal shoulder being disposed at the end of the squeezing range 2, i.e., to position the end of the collet 10 at the end of the squeezing range 2 the corresponding internal shoulder would have to be positioned at the end of the squeezing range 2. Therefore, any second internal shoulder against which the end of the collet 10 abuts would be compressed along with the end of the collet 10 during the crimping process. App. Br. 12. Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 5 We agree with Appellants that the second shoulder would be positioned at the end of the compressed portion 2. We disagree, however, with Appellants’ conclusion that such a second shoulder therefore would be compressed. Rather, the second shoulder would be located immediately outside the compressed portion and, thus, not compressed. Figure 2 of Brock is reproduced below with an annotation. Figure 2 depicts a fiber optic cable 9 having a cover 10 and sleeve 1 surrounding it. As can be seen, and as acknowledged by Appellants on page 12 of the Appeal Brief, the right end of the cover is flush with the right end of the compressed portion of the sleeve. A vertical line has been added, which marks both the right end of the cover and the right end of the compressed portion of the sleeve. When modifying Brock to include the second internal shoulder of Burger, the second shoulder would be positioned immediately to the right of the vertical line and, thus, outside of the compressed portion in order for it to function properly as an abutting surface for the right end of the cover. See Ans. 4 (incorporating the second internal shoulder of Burger into the connector of Brock would “even more reliably control the insertion depth of Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 6 the cover into the sleeve”). If any portion of the second shoulder were located to the left of the vertical line, then the shoulder would impede the cover from being fully inserted from left to right to reach the position shown in Figure 2 of Brock, and the radially extending conical portion of the left end of the cover would not abut the first (left) shoulder 5, as intended by Brock. See Brock, Fig. 2; see also Brock translation p. 2, second full paragraph. Appellants additionally argue that the second shoulder would have a substantially vertical stopping surface instead of the angled stopping surface of the exemplary shoulders illustrated on page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer. Reply 5. From this premise, Appellants erroneously conclude that because such a vertical stopping surface would lie at the vertical line, the shoulder would fall within the Brock compressed portion. Reply 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Even if the second shoulder employed a vertical stopping surface, the shoulder itself would necessarily be located entirely (and immediately) outside the compressed portion of Brock in order for it to not stop insertion of the cover prematurely. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the decision to reject independent claim 1. Although Appellants argue dependent claims 3-6, 10, and 11 under separate headings from claim 1, they do not present separate arguments. App. Br. 15-18. Hence, we also sustain the decision to reject claims 3-6, 10, and 11. Appeal 2010-010598 Application 11/202,108 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, 10, and 11 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ak