Robert E. Fransen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

14932062 - (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.
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