Robert E. Fransen et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 201914932062 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/932,062 11/04/2015 Robert E. Fransen LCB768-CON-2 8096 32915 7590 09/25/2019 PANDUIT CORP. 18900 Panduit Drive Tinley Park, IL 60487 EXAMINER PATEL, HARSHAD C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 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): patents@panduit.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT E. FRANSEN, MICHAEL K. YUAN, and SATISH I. PATEL Appeal 2018-008939 Application 14/932,062 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, and 8–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panduit Corp. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-008939 Application 14/932,062 2 Appellant claims a communication system 40 comprising: a communication cable 48 including a plurality of insulated conductors 94/108; and a communication connector 44 including a plurality of insulation displacement contacts 80 each being in direct contact with an insulated conductor, the direct contact being established by rotation of an insulated conductor relative to a respective insulation displacement contact, wherein the insulated conductors are positioned within a conductor alignment structure 82 that maintains a position of each insulated conductor relative to a respective insulation displacement contact during said rotation by supporting the respective insulated conductor on both longitudinal sides of the respective insulation displacement contact (independent claim 1, Figs. 1, 3, 14A, 14B). Appellant also claims the communication connector itself (remaining independent claim 8). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A communication system comprising: a communication cable including a plurality of insulated conductors; and a communication connector including a housing and a plurality of insulation displacement contacts (IDCs) positioned at least partially within said housing, each of said IDCs being in direct contact with one of said insulated conductors, said direct contact being established by rotation of said insulated conductor relative to respective said IDC, said rotation causing said respective IDC to displace insulation of respective said insulated conductor, wherein said plurality of insulated conductors are positioned within a conductor alignment structure, said conductor alignment structure maintaining a position of each of said insulated conductors relative to one of respective said IDCs during said rotation by supporting respective said insulated conductors on both longitudinal sides of respective said IDC. Appeal 2018-008939 Application 14/932,062 3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–6, and 8–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cieniawa (US 3,980,380; issued Sept. 14, 1976) and rejects claims 13–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cieniawa in view of Davis (US 6,478,609 B1; issued Nov. 12, 2002). Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to dependent claims 3–6 and 9–16 (Appeal Br. 6). Therefore, these dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims 1 and 8, of which claim 1 is representative. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer, and below. In rejecting representative claim 1 under § 102(b), the Examiner finds that Cieniawa discloses the claimed communication system including a conductor alignment structure 238A (i.e., of element 237) and 238B (i.e., of element 231) for maintaining a position of each insulated conductor 239 in the manner claimed (Final 2–4 (citing Cieniawa Fig. 14)). Appellant argues that the Examiner unreasonably interprets the conductor alignment structure of claim 1 as encompassing more than one component (Appeal Br. 6). According to Appellant, “it is up to the [E]xaminer to show how a two-part structure which isn’t even locked in rotation can qualify as a conductor alignment structure when every embodiment of the [S]pecification shows the conductor alignment structure as a single integral piece which is consequently locked in rotation” (id.). Similarly, Appellant states “it is also up to the [E]xaminer to show how the apertures of 231 which are locked in rotation relative to the IDCs can qualify as a part of a conductor alignment structure in a manner which is consistent with [A]pplicant’s [S]pecification when every embodiment in [A]pplicant’s Appeal 2018-008939 Application 14/932,062 4 [S]pecification shows the entire conductor alignment structure rotating relative to the IDCs” (id.). In response, the Examiner points out that claim 1 does not define the claimed conductor alignment structure with any structural specificity and therefore the claimed structure broadly reads on Cieniawa’s two components (i.e., elements 231 and 237) that are assembled into a single integral piece (Ans. 2–3 (citing Cieniawa Fig. 16)). In this latter regard, the Examiner observes that Appellant’s characterization of the conductor alignment structure as a single integral piece is not supported by the language of claim 1 (id. at 3). Regardless, the Examiner determines that Cieniawa’s two components, once assembled together, constitute a single integral piece (id.). We emphasize that Appellant does not address, and accordingly does not show error in, any of these responses by the Examiner (i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed). Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive for multiple reasons. First, Appellant cites no Specification disclosures in support of the statements that “every embodiment” of the Specification shows the conductor alignment structure as having certain features such as a structure in the form of a single integral piece (see Appeal Br. 6). Moreover, even assuming every embodiment shows the conductor alignment structure as a single integral piece, interpreting the claimed structure as having this feature is not consistent with the express Specification disclosure that the described embodiments “are non-limiting, and there are alterations, permutations, and equivalents that fall within the scope of this invention” (Spec. ¶ 61). On the other hand, this paragraph 61 disclosure supports the Examiner’s claim interpretation that the conductor alignment structure of claim 1 encompasses Appeal 2018-008939 Application 14/932,062 5 a structure having more than one component. In addition, Appellant’s arguments are convincingly refuted by the Examiner’s undisputed determination that claim 1 does not define the conductor alignment structure as a single integral piece and that, regardless, Cieniawa’s elements 231 and 237, once assembled, constitute a single integral piece. For the above-stated reasons and those given by the Examiner, Appellant fails to show error in the rejections of claims 1, 3–6, and 8–16. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. 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). CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–6, 8–12 § 102(b) Cieniawa 1, 3–6, 8–12 13–16 § 103(a) Cieniawa, Davis 13–16 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6, 8–16 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation