Micah Colen. Isenhour et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

13902059 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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.
13/902,059 05/24/2013 Micah Colen Isenhour HI10-094 5416
21495 7590 09/25/2019
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
BLEVINS, JERRY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICAH COLEN ISENHOUR,
DENNIS MICHAEL KNECHT, and JAMES PHILLIP LUTHER
____________________

Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059
Technology Center 2800
____________________
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 13, 14, 21, and 23. We affirm.

1 �e appeal record includes the following: Specification, May 24, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action, Apr. 21, 2016 (“Final Action”); Appeal Brief,
Sept. 20, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, Oct. 20, 2017
(“Answer”); and Reply Brief, Dec. 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant is Corning Optical Communications LLC, which is the current
name of the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant also
identifies this entity as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention “is directed to field-installable fiber optic
connectors suitable for use with consumer electronics and related fiber optic
cable assemblies.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1, which we reproduce
below, is representative:
1. A mechanical splice connector, comprising:
at least one body for receiving at least one field optical
fiber;
a mechanical retention component for securing at least
one optical field fiber to the at least one body; and
at least one lens attached to the at least one body.
Appeal Br. 21 (emphases added). Claim 21 is also independent, and includes
similar limitations. See id. at 24. Claims 2–3, 5–8, 13, and 14 depend from
claim 1, and claim 23 depends from claim 21. Id. at 15–18.
�e Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, 21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Liao.3 Final Action 3–5. �e
Examiner rejects the remaining dependent claims under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Liao in view of either Shimotzu4 (claims 2, 55) or Milette6
(claims 3 and 7). Id. at 5–7.
DISCUSSION
�e Appeal Brief argues claims 1 and 21 together in the context of the
§ 102(e) rejection, and does not specifically address the dependent claims.

3 Liao et al., US 2010/0290745 A1 (published Nov. 18, 2010) (“Liao”).
4 Shimotsu et al., WO 2009/030982 A2 (published Mar. 12, 2009)
(“Shimotsu”).
5 �e Examiner also included claim 24, which does not exist. See Final
Action 5.
6 Milette et al., US 2010/0046892 A1 (published Feb. 25, 2010) (“Milette”).
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

3
See Appeal Br. 19–20. �erefore, we focus our decision on the common
features of claims 1 and 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Figures 4 and 5 of Liao, which we reproduce below, depict an optical
connector in partial assembly and cross-sectional views, respectively:

Liao ¶¶ 14–15. Figure 4 depicts insulative housing 1 including base portion
11 and fiber grooves 111 (not labeled). Id. ¶ 23. �ere are “a pair of [optical]
fibers 35 attached to the main body 30 and received in the fiber grooves
111.” Id. ¶ 25. Main body 30 slides along blocks 123 in a front-to-back
direction, but compression coil spring 4 biases main body 30 in the forward
direction (also shown in Fig. 5). Id. �ere is also “a set of lenses 33 attached
to the main body 30.” Id. Figure 5 depicts metal shell 7 on the top of the
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

4
assembled connector. Id. ¶ 26. Although not labeled, Figure 5 also depicts
“plastic case 9 surrounding . . . metal shell 7.” Id. ¶ 22.
�e Examiner finds that Liao discloses each limitation of claim 1. See
Final Action 2–3; see also Answer 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Liao discloses lens 33 as being indirectly “attached” to body 9. Final Action
2. According to the Examiner, “element 30 is attached to the shell 7, and
thus the element 30 is attached to the body 9, and . . . the lens 33 is attached
to the body 9. �e present claim language does not require that the lens be
directly attached to the body.” Id.
�e Examiner also finds that Liao teaches a “mechanical retention
component” comprising portions of elements 7 and 11, which secures optical
fibers 35 to body 9. Final Action 3; see also Answer 6–7. Alternatively, the
Examiner also finds that “fiber 35 is attached to element 30,” and thus is
secured to body 9 for the same reason that lens 33 is attached to body 9. See
Final Action 2 (citing Liao ¶ 25).
In response, Appellant makes the following arguments: (1) that Liao
does not disclose a lens attached to a body according to the plain meaning of
the word attached, and (2) that Liao does not disclose the recited mechanical
retention component. We address these arguments in turn, below.
A. Whether Liao discloses “at least one lens attached to the at least
one body”
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that lenses 33 are
“attached” to case 9, because lenses 33 in Liao are floatable with respect to
the other components. See Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 14–16 (pointing to
evidence in Liao that main body 30, to which lenses 33 are directly attached,
is floatable with respect to metal shell 7 and case 9). According to Appellant,
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

5
the plain meaning of the word attached in claims 1 and 21 is “that the at
least one lens is joined or fastened to the [at] least one body.” Appeal Br.
16.7 In addition, Appellant argues that lenses 33 must “be a portion of plastic
case 9,” id. at 14, or at least that lenses 33 are not “free to float within the
connector 100, including the plastic case 9,” id. at 16.
�e Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s evidence that Liao’s main
body 30 is floatable with respect to the other components. However, the
Examiner suggests that in light of the Specification, “[r]eading the word
‘attached’ as meaning ‘so as not to allow for movement’ is an unduly narrow
interpretation of the word.” Answer 3. As evidence, the Examiner points to
the Appeal Brief, in which Appellant identifies, as an embodiment of claims
1 and 21 in the Specification, a connector in which the lenses are similarly
floatable. See Answer 3. �e Specification depicts this embodiment in Figure
9, which we reproduce below:

Figure 9 is a perspective view depicting lenses 150 joined by springs 178
(not labeled) to spring push 170, all of which are held in a retention slot
formed in body 112. See Spec. ¶ 51. Figure 10, which we do not reproduce

7 �e Examiner agrees that attached means “joined or fastened.” See Answer
4.
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

6
here, is an exploded view of the same embodiment. See id. ¶ 52. According
to the Examiner,
�e lens is identified as element 150 and the body is identified
as element 112. �ese elements are clearly shown in Figs. 9 and
10 as being attached via springs 178 (see Spec. [0051–0052]).
Appellant’s lens 150 is attached, yet allowed to move because
of spring 178. �is is nearly the identical arrangement of the
Liao lens which is attached, yet allowed to move because of
spring 4 (see Liao Fig. 4).
Answer 3.
In response, Appellant argues that the section in the Appeal Brief
identifying this embodiment as falling within the scope of claims 1 and 21
was the result of “typographical errors.” Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
According to Appellant, “the errors referenced embodiments in the
application that are not covered by the present claims.” Id. �us, Appellant
submits a “correction” referring to other embodiments in the Specification
than the one containing the floatable lenses. Id. at 9–10. In one of these
embodiments, the Specification discloses that “the lens components 55 may
be integrally formed with the body 12 as a single component.” Reply Br. 8
(quoting Spec. ¶ 44).
Absent a showing of good cause, the Board does not consider new
arguments raised in a reply brief unless they are responsive to a position or
ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
�e Examiner relied on Appellant’s original Summary of the Claimed
Subject Matter as an admission that features found in Figures 9 and 10 of the
Specification embody claims 1 and 21. See Answer 3. Appellant describes
this admission as a “typographical error,” but the change represents a shift in
the substance of Appellant’s its original position. Because Appellant did not
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

7
include this position in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner did not have the
opportunity to respond to it in the Answer. �erefore, Appellant has not
shown good cause for introducing the new material in the Reply Brief, and
we do not consider it in this appeal.
Appellant’s admission in the Appeal Brief is relevant to the
construction of the term attached. See Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
778 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Any explanation, elaboration, or
qualification presented by the inventor during patent examination is relevant,
for the role of claim construction is to ‘capture the scope of the actual
invention’ that is disclosed, described, and patented.” (quoting Retractable
Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
2011))). Moreover, even if we were to disregard Appellant’s admission in
the Appeal Brief, we agree with the Examiner that Figures 9 and 10 embody
a mechanical splice connector falling within the scope of claims 1 and 21.
During prosecution and on appeal, “claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term attached does
not require direct attachment. In the embodiment of Figures 9 and 10, lens
150 attaches indirectly to body 112, through springs 178 and spring push
170. Appellant does not point to anything in the Specification suggesting, to
the contrary, that this embodiment is not within the scope of claims 1 and 21.
�us, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that
Liao discloses “at least one lens attached to the at least one body” as recited
in claims 1 and 21.
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

8
B. Whether Liao discloses “a mechanical retention component for
securing at least one optical field fiber to the at least one body”
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Liao
discloses “a mechanical retention component for securing at least one optical
field fiber to the at least one body” as recited in claims 1 and 21. According
to Appellant, “[n]owhere in Liao are the optical fibers 35 illustrated or
described as being attached to the plastic case 9.” Appeal Br. 18. Further,
Appellant argues that “[i]n no way do the first and second metal shells 7 and
8 secure the optical fibers to the plastic case 9 (i.e., the at least one body).”
Id. Appellant also argues that fibers 35 attach to main body 30, and again
relies on the fact that main body 30 is a floating component:
[T]he main body 30 of the optical module 3 floats with respect
to the insulative housing 1. �erefore, according to the express
teachings of Liao, the insulative housing 1 and its base portion
11 do not and cannot “secure at least one optical field fiber to
the at least one body.”
Appeal Br. 19.
For similar reasons as those discussed above in part A, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not require a direct
attachment between the optical fibers and the body. Rather, the claim
language only requires a “mechanical retention component” for “securing”
the fiber to the body. We agree with the Examiner that in Liao, “optical fibers
35 are mechanically retained by at least base portion 11 of insulative housing
1 and metal shell 7, because metal shell 7 directly surrounds and is
mechanically secured to base portion 11, having the optical fibers 35
mechanically secured therebetween.” Answer 6. Moreover, we agree with
the Examiner that “body 9 integrally surrounds metal shell 7 and base
portion 11.” Id. �us, the preponderance of the evidence supports the
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

9
Examiner’s finding that Liao’s connector contains a mechanical retention
component (combination of 7 and 11) that secures optical fiber 35 to base 9.
After the Examiner filed the Answer and before Appellant filed the
Reply Brief, we issued a decision reversing the examiner’s rejection in an
appeal of Application No. US 13/902,039. See Ex parte Isenhour, No. 2016-
002182, 2017 WL 4457665 (Oct. 2, 2017). Appellant argues that we “should
look to and be guided by” the previous decision, to find that Liao omits the
mechanical retention component recited in claims 1 and 12. Reply Br. 3. We
disagree. In the prior appeal, the claims at issue included the limitation
“where the mechanical retention component can move between an open
position and a clamp position.” Isenhour at *1. We held that the examiner
failed to provide a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined Liao’s connector with the teachings of
Shimotzu to achieve this limitation. See id. at *2. Because the present claims
1 and 21 do not include this limitation, the reason we reversed in the prior
case is not pertinent to this appeal.
For the above reasons, and based on the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as a whole, which we find persuasive, the preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection, and Appellant has not shown
reversible error. �erefore, we affirm the Examiner’s decision as to all
claims.
Appeal 2018-001797
Application 13/902,059

10
CONCLUSION
�e following table summarizes the decision:
Claim Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8, 13, 14, 21, 23 § 102(e) Liao 1, 6, 8, 13, 14, 21, 23
2, 5 § 103(a)
Liao,
Shimotzu
2, 5
3, 7 § 103(a)
Liao, Milette
3, 7
Overall Outcome

1–3, 5–8, 13, 14, 21, 23
DECISION
�e Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv), 41.50(f)
(2018).
AFFIRMED