CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

2020002961 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)

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.
14/324,269 07/07/2014 Abhijit Sengupta 02316.6884USU1 7840
142510 7590 11/25/2020
M&G CommScope
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CHIEM, DINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2020 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):
uspto142510@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHIJIT SENGUPTA

Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269
Technology Center 2800

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, 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, 3–7, 10, 12–14, 16–20, and 25–28,
which are all the claims pending. Oral argument was heard on November 5,
2020. A copy of the transcript will be entered in due course. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CommScope, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INTRODUCTION
The claimed subject matter generally relates to fiber optic connectors
and, more specifically to fiber optic connectors in which an optical fiber and
an optical mode field converter are both at least partially within a groove in
a substrate of the connector. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 8, 9, Abstract. Claims 1 and 14 are
independent claims, and illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A fiber optic connector, comprising:
a substrate having a groove therein;
an optical fiber that is at least partly in the groove;
an optical mode field converter that is positioned to
receive an optical signal that is output from the optical fiber, the
optical mode field converter being at least partially within the
groove in the substrate;
a housing that surrounds the substrate and the optical fiber.
THE PENDING REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–6, 10, 12–14, 16–19, and 26–28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Bylander (US 2014/0193116 A1; July 10,
2014). Final Act. 2–6.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bylander and Barwicz (US 2014/0270652 A1; Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 7.
Claims 20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Bylander and Smaglinski (US 6,832,031 B2; Dec. 14, 2004). Final
Act. 7–9.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Appellant argues the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 10, 12–
14, 16–19, and 26–28 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Bylander as a
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

3
group. See Appeal Br. 16–24. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1
as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The entirety of the dispute between Appellant and the Examiner
relates to the proper construction of a “groove” and, when properly
construed, whether Bylander discloses an “optical mode field converter
being at least partially within the groove in the substrate,” as recited in
representative independent claim 1.2 Therefore, we begin by construing the
claimed “groove.”
Appellant argues the broadest reasonable interpretation of a groove is
its plain meaning—i.e., it’s ordinary and customary meaning. Appeal
Br. 16–17. In the Appeal Brief, however, Appellant does not propose a
construction. See Appeal Br. 16–20. Instead, Appellant merely asserts the
only grooves Bylander discloses are vee-grooves 426. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Bylander does
not disclose that vee-grooves 426 extend through substrate 420 to cavity or
pocket 440 but rather that grooves 426 extend only along a portion of
substrate 420’s upper surface 424. Appeal Br. 17–19.
The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claimed grooves, in light of the Specification, to be “areas of
the substrate where material has been removed to form voids or spaces or
cavities in the substrate to accommodate part of an optical fiber and a part of
an optical mode field converter.” Ans. 4; see also id. at 5 (“Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that any void/space/cavity in the substrate which

2 Claim 14 recites a similar disputed limitation, namely “a first optical mode
field converter being positioned at least partially in the first groove.” Appeal
Br. 27.
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

4
accommodates the optical mode field converters can be considered a groove,
consistent with the disclosed groove/cavity.”). The Examiner finds the
Specification discloses cavities in certain embodiments that “are not
channel-like,” and the Examiner therefore finds the claimed grooves would
include the cavities disclosed in the Specification. Ans. 4–5.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed construction of
grooves in light of the Specification as “areas of the substance where
material has been removed to form voids or spaces or cavities in the
substrate to accommodate part of an optical fiber and a part of an optical
mode field converter” is overly broad and inconsistent with Appellant’s
Specification. Reply Br. 1 (quoting Ans. 4). Appellant argues the
Specification does not provide a specific definition of a groove, but the
Specification does distinguish a groove from a cavity and, therefore, a
groove cannot be defined so broadly as to encompass a cavity. Reply Br. 1–
5. Appellant submits that the plain meaning of a groove is “a long narrow
channel or depression.” Reply Br. 1 (citing MERRIAM WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1993).
We agree with Appellant that the Specification does not provide a
special definition of a groove and, therefore, a groove is properly construed
by applying the ordinary and customary meaning. We also agree with
Appellant that the Specification distinguishes a cavity from a groove. See,
e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 93–96, 103–106. The Specification, however, does not clearly
identify the specific difference between a cavity and a groove. Nevertheless,
for purpose of this decision, we accept and adopt Appellant’s proposed
construction of a groove as “a long narrow channel or depression.” See
Reply Br. 1 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

5
Next, we turn to the Examiner’s findings regarding Bylander’s
disclosures and Appellant’s contentions. The Examiner stated that
Bylander’s groove “include[s] the groove (426) which extends to cavity or
pocket (140, 240, 340, 440 etc.) in accordance to the defined ‘groove’ in the
Specification (Para [0071]).” Final Act. 3. However, in the Answer, the
Examiner clarifies that finding, explaining that Bylander’s vee-grooves 426,
pocket 440, “and the area surrounding redirection features (435/235)” are
“removed by etching or some similar process to form the void/space/cavity.”
Ans. 7. Therefore, the Examiner finds each of these areas disclose a groove,
as properly construed. Ans. 7. The Examiner notes it is clear that
Bylander’s light redirecting features that the Examiner finds disclose the
recited optical mode field converters are not on the same side of the
substrate as pocket 440. Ans. 7. Thus, although the Examiner finds
Bylander’s pocket 440 is a groove, the Examiner does not find that pocket
440 discloses the recited groove within which the optical mode field
converter is at least partially positioned.
Instead, the Examiner finds that the space “in the area of redirecting
features (435/235) is not specifically labeled . . . making it difficult to
reference the groove surrounding the mode field converters (435/235)” but
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
unlabeled area to be a portion of a groove that includes vee-groove 426.
Ans. 7. The Examiner annotated Figure 3A to identify the portions of
Bylander’s connector that the Examiner finds teaches the recited groove,
which we reproduce here:
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

6

Final Act. 10–11 (Examiner-annotated version of Bylander Figure 3A with
identified “groove area” that the Examiner finds discloses the claimed
groove).
More specifically, the Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan
“would consider both the portions labeled vee-grooves (426/226) and the
void/space/cavity in the substrate which accommodates the optical mode
field converters (435/235) as part of the claimed ‘grooves’ as it is one
continuous void/space/cavity in the substrate designed to accommodate both
the fiber (432/232) and optical mode field converter (435/235).” Ans. 5; see
also id. at 1, 8 (explaining that a groove is not limited to only elements that
Bylander explicitly labels a groove, but instead may encompass other
portions of Bylander’s connecter consistent with the proper construction of
“groove”). Thus, the Examiner finds Bylander discloses “the optical mode
field converter being at least partially within the groove in the substrate,” as
recited in representative claim 1. Ans. 7.
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

7
Appellant reproduces and annotates Figure 2A and argues Bylander’s
only grooves are vee-grooves 226 and what Appellant labels and “open
volume” is not a groove. Reply Br. 5–7. We reproduce Appellant’s
annotated figure here (annotations include the dotted lines, two-directional
arrows and labels in bold):

Reply Br. 6 (annotated version of Bylander Figure 2A identified alleged
“grooves” and “open volume”).
Notably, Appellant does not address Figure 3A other than to assert
that the claims are directed to a “groove” not a “groove area” and the
claimed groove should not encompass “the general neighborhood where the
groove is found.” Appeal Br. 10–11. Even accepting, for purposes of this
decision, Appellant’s argument that the “open volume” surrounding
Bylander’s light redirecting elements 235a–d does not disclose a groove,
Appellant has not demonstrated why at least the channel defined by the area
surrounding light redirecting element 335b in combination with vee-groove
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

8
425b—i.e., the area the Examiner identifies as “groove area” in the
Examiner-annotated Figure 3A—does not disclose the claimed groove. We
agree with the Examiner that the Y-shaped channel that the Examiner labels
a “groove area” discloses a groove because it is “a long narrow channel or
depression.” Furthermore, Bylander depicts light redirecting element 335b,
which the Examiner finds discloses the recited optical mode field converter,
as being at least partially in this groove.
Therefore, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that the
Bylander discloses a connector having a substrate with a groove therein and
an optical fiber and an optical mode field converter both are at least partially
in the groove, as recited in representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of representative claim 1 as anticipated by Bylander. We also
sustain the rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 3–6, 10,
12, 13, 16–19, and 26–28, which Appellant did not argue separately with
particularity, for the same reasons.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 7, 20,
and 25, Appellant argues only that Barwicz (with respect to claim 7) and
Smaglinski (with respect to claims 20 and 25) fail to remedy the deficiencies
identified with respect to independent claims 1 and 14 and, therefore, these
claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent claims from
which they depend. See Appeal Br. 24–25. As discussed above, we
disagree with Appellant’s assertions that Bylander fails to disclose the
subject matter recited in representative claim 1. Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 7, 20, and
25 as obvious over Bylander and either Barwicz or Smaglinski.
Appeal 2020-002961
Application 14/324,269

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 10,
12–14, 16–
19, 26–28
102 Bylander
1, 3–6, 10,
12–14, 16–19,
26–28

7 103 Bylander, Barwicz 7
20, 25 103 Bylander, Smaglinski 20, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 10,
12–14, 16–19,
20, 25–28

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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