Corning Cable Systems LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

2020004845 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
13/760,669 02/06/2013 Robert Elvin Barnette JR. HI13-012 4275
21495 7590 10/28/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
KIANNI, KAVEH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT ELVIN BARNETTE JR.
and HIEU VINH TRAN
____________________

Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Action, dated September 25, 2019, rejecting claims 1–4, 6–12, 14, 15, 18–
23, and 25. 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 Corning Optical Communications
LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

2
The invention relates to “fiber optic multiports having ports connected
to the distal ends of respective extensions.” Appeal Br. 8. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A fiber optic multiport, comprising:

a housing, wherein the housing defines an enclosure,
wherein the housing comprises an interlocking structure
comprising a cover piece fastened to a base piece, and wherein
the housing seals off the enclosure from the environment;

a multi-fiber connector coupled to the housing;

a plurality of optical fibers connected to and extending
from the multi-fiber connector into the enclosure;

extensions having proximal ends attached to the housing,
the extensions projecting away from the housing, wherein the
extensions support sub-sets of the plurality of optical fibers, and
wherein the extensions are flexible such that the extensions may
bend independently of one another; and

ports connected to distal ends of the extensions, and the
ports not being attached to the housing.

Independent claims 14, 18, and 21 recite a fiber optic multiport
similar to claim 1 but include additional features.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 1–4, 12, 14, 15, 23, and 25 rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nhep (US 2010/0092136 A1,
published April 15, 2010) and Ford (US 2011/0108719 A1, published May
12, 2011).

Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

3
II. Claims 6 and 7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nhep, Ford, and Olson (US 2003/0017741 A1, published
January 23, 2003).

III. Claims 8–11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nhep, Ford, and Davis (US 2010/0303426 A1, published
December 2, 2010).

IV. Claims 18–21 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nhep and Davis.

V. Claims 1, 2, 8–12, 18–23, and 25 rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parikh (US 2009/0060421 A1,
published March 5, 2009).

VI. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, and 15 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Parikh and Ford.

OPINION
Rejection I: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Nhep and Ford
After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) essentially for the reasons the Examiner
presents. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 12,
23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons Appellant presents. We
add the following.
We limit our discussion to independent claims 1 and 14 and refer to
the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete statement of the rejection
of these claims. See Final Act. 4–8.

Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

4
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising a housing that seals
off an enclosure from the environment.
The Examiner finds that Nhep teaches a fiber optic multiport
including a housing comprising a cover piece fastened to a base piece that
form an interlocking structure that seals off the enclosure from the
environment. Final Act. 4; Nhep Figs. 1 and 5. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains that the Nhep’s housing body 42, as shown in Figure 2, is
completely enclosed without any noticeable openings or passages, except the
passages though which the cables enter the housing. Ans. 7. The Examiner
further contends that the claimed term “seal” does not mandate a degree of
sealing and, therefore, the claim does not require a hermetic seal. Id.
Appellant argues that the only use of an element that could possible
seal the fanout 16 is the epoxy disposed in pocket 111. Appeal Br. 22; see
Nhep Fig. 14, ¶ 41. Appellant contends that the epoxy inhibits movement of
the optical fibers and there is no evidence that the epoxy seals any structure.
Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant further explains that the upper and lower
housing portions 120, 130 provide no sealing function and that Nhep
requires holes 162 for mounting the fanout 16 in telecommunications
equipment. Reply Br. 13; Nhep Fig. 6.
These arguments identify reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness for this claim.
The Examiner’s assertion that the claimed term “seal” does not
mandate a degree of sealing and, therefore, the claim does not require a
hermetic seal does not account for the term “off.” Ans. 7. The ordinary
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

5
meaning of “seal off” is “to close completely”2 while “hermetic seal” is
defined as “an airtight seal”3 or “complete and airtight seal.”4 Thus, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “sealed off” in claim 1 with respect to
the two pieces used to form the housing is that these pieces are completely
sealed to protect the enclosure from the environment. The Examiner’s
response fails to address adequately Appellant’s arguments because the
Examiner directs us to no portion of Nhep that supports the finding that
interlocked pieces 120 and 130 seal off the enclosure of the housing.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 12,
23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising the use of ports
connected to distal ends of extensions. Unlike claim 1, claim 14 does not
recite a housing that seals off an enclosure from the environment.
The Examiner finds that Nhep teaches a fiber optic multi-port
comprising ports 22. Final Act. 4; Nhep Fig. 1, ¶ 35.
Appellant disputes that Nhep’s elements 22 are ports as required by
the subject matter of claim 14 because “[i]n its plain meaning, a ‘port’
receives a structure or device.” Appeal Br. 18. According to Appellant,
Nhep’s elements do not receive a structure or device but instead are plugged
in. Appeal Br. 18–21; Nhep ¶¶ 35–36. Appellant tacitly acknowledges that

2 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/seal-off (accessed
October 14, 2020).
3 https://www.yourdictionary.com/hermetic-seal (accessed October 16,
2020).
4 https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hermetic (accessed October 16,
2020).
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

6
claim 14 does not recite the ports as receiving any structure or device.
However, Appellant contends that “[i]t is beyond refute that the present
application requires the ports of the fiber optic multiports to receive a
connector of a branching cable as discussed [in] the [present] specification
and well-known to one skilled in the art for fiber-to-the-home applications.”
Appeal Br. 18. In essence, Appellant contends that the claimed “port”
defines exclusively a female connector. In support of these contentions,
Appellant directs attention to paragraphs 2 (“The ports may be used for
mating with connectors attached to branching cables such as for ‘fiber-to-
the-home’ applications.”) and 4 (“A need exists for a multiport that
conveniently fits in tight or unusually-arranged storage spaces, while
providing the functionality of conventional multiports and/or improving
thereupon by allowing faster and easier access to the ports for connections of
branching cables.”) of the Specification. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation. “[D]uring examination proceedings,
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)). See also
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(explaining that the scope of the claims in patent applications is not
determined solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

7
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” (citation omitted)). In
general,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the [Appellant’s] [S]pecification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, the terms in the appealed claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation including the ordinary meaning unless another
meaning is intended by Appellant as established in the written description of
their Specification. See, e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
When the Specification does not contain an express definition, a
reasonable, supported interpretation of the appealed claims that differs from
that urged by applicants can be used to determine the patentability of the
claims. Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055–56 (“Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation.”). Indeed, “[i]t is the applicants’ burden to precisely define
the invention, not the PTO’s. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 [statute omitted].”
Morris, 127 F.3d at 1055–56.
After reviewing the portions of the Specification the Appellant
highlights, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not
provides a specific or special definition of “port.” Ans. 5. We first note that
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

8
the cited portions of the Specification merely state that “[t]he ports may be
used for mating with connectors attached to branching cables” (Spec. ¶ 2)
and that there be a “faster and easier access to the ports for connections of
branching cables” (id. ¶ 4). These portions of the Specification do not
expressly limit “port” to any specific type of connector. Instead, these
portions recite the need to establish access using the ports.
Moreover, common definitions of port in this art include “a hardware
interface by which a computer is connected to another device (such as a
printer, a mouse, or another computer) broadly”5 and “the circuit, outlet, etc.
which serves as a connection between a computer and its peripheral.”6
Consistent with the cited portions of the Specification, neither of these
definitions limit “port” to a female connector.
Therefore, Appellant has failed to explain persuasively why one
skilled in the art would not reasonably understand “port” to include both
male and female connectors. Ans. 5.
Claim 14 also recites at least two groups of the extensions, wherein
extensions within each group are the same length as one another, and
wherein lengths of extensions differ between the two groups, whereby sets
of ports corresponding to the two groups of extensions are staggered relative
to one another from the housing.
Appellant argues that Ford is directed to non-analogous art because it
is directed to a multi-channel source assembly for downhole spectroscopy in
drilling applications for hydrocarbons while the claimed invention is

5 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/port (accessed 9/29/2020).
6 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/port (accessed
9/29/2020).
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

9
directed to multiports used for fiber-to-the-home deployments. Appeal Br.
23–24; Ford Abstr., ¶¶ 2–3. According to Appellant, these are different
fields of endeavor. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant further contends that the
skilled artisan would not consider the multi-channel source assembly for
downhole spectroscopy in hydrocarbon drilling applications reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, the bulkiness and design of
the prior art multiport. Appeal Br. 24; see Spec. ¶ 4. Thus, Appellant
asserts that one skilled in the art would not have combined the teachings of
the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Ford teaches that extensions in the claimed
arrangement are known to provide optical signals for a specific purpose.
Final Act. 4–5; Ford Fig. 8. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that Ford and the claimed invention are directed to the same
field of endeavor of optical transmission. Ans. 7–8; Ford ¶¶ 11, 83.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
misinterpreted Ford’s teachings for the reasons the Examiner presents.
Appeal Br. 25–26; Ans. 7. In addition, these arguments do not detract from
the Examiner’s finding that Ford and the claimed invention are directed to
the field of optical transmission.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

10
Rejections II and III
The Examiner rejected claims 6–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nhep and Ford in combination with
additional secondary references. Claims 6–11 ultimately depend on
independent claim 1, the rejection of which we did not sustain. The
Examiner did not rely on the additional secondary references to address the
deficiencies found in connection with the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection IV
Claims 18–20
Claim 18 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising the use of ports
connected to distal ends of extensions. Unlike claim 1, claim 18 does not
recite a housing that seals off an enclosure from the environment.
The Examiner finds that Nhep teaches a fiber optic multi-port
comprising ports 22. Final Act. 4; Nhep Fig. 1, ¶ 35.
Appellant relies on the argument concerning the meaning of “ports”
presented when discussing claim 14 to address the rejection of claims 18 and
19 based on this same issue. Appeal Br. 29. Based on our previous
discussion regarding this issue, we determine that Appellant’s arguments do
not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness
for the reasons the Examiner presents and we give above. Appellant does
not explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would not reasonably
understand “port” to include both male and female connectors. Ans. 3–6.
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

11
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 21
Like independent claim 1, independent claim 21 recites a fiber optic
multiport comprising a housing that seals off an enclosure from the
environment.
In rejecting this claim, the Examiner cites an additional secondary
reference but does not rely on this reference to address the deficiencies
previously noted with respect to the rejection of claim 1 on this issue. Final
Act. 10–13.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection V
Appellant argues claims 1 and 18 together and does not present
substantive arguments for claims 2, 8–12, 19–23, and 25. Appeal Br. 44–46.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter
claimed and decide the issues as to this appealed rejection based principally
on the arguments as applied to independent claim 1. We address any
arguments specific to claim 18 separately.
Claim 1
Claims 1 recites a fiber optic multiport comprising the use of ports
connected to distal ends of extensions.
The Examiner finds that Parikh teaches a fiber optic multi-port
comprising ports 30. Final Act. 13; See Parikh Fig. 9.
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

12
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of claims 1 and 18. Final Act. 13–17.
Appellant presents a line of argument concerning the meaning of
“ports” in claim 1 that is substantially similar to the line of arguments
presented for the same issue addressed in the rejection over Nhep, as applied
to claim 14. Appeal Br. 40–43. We determine that Appellant’s arguments
do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination of
obviousness over Parikh for substantially the reasons we express above.
Appellant has failed to explain persuasively why one skilled in the art would
not reasonably understand “port” to include both male and female
connectors. Ans. 4–6.
Appellant contends that Parikh’s housing 150 of cable assembly 100
requires a unibody construction that does not have a cover plate piece and a
base piece as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 45; Parikh ¶ 73.
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellant’s arguments misapprehend
the rejection. As the Examiner explains in the Final Office Action and the
Answer, the structure of Parikh that corresponds to the claimed housing
comprises the unibody housing 200 and a cover piece (the orifice plate 420).
Final Act.14; Ans. 8; see Parikh Figs. 8–12, ¶ 73. This interpretation is
reasonable given that orifice 420 has a latch 455 to secure the orifice plate
420 to the unibody housing 200. Parikh ¶ 73. Therefore, Appellant’s
arguments do not address, or refute, the rejection the Examiner presents.
Appellant also argues that Parikh does not disclose, teach or otherwise
reasonably suggest a fiber optic multiport comprising “a multi-fiber
connector coupled to the housing” as recited by independent claim 1 or “a
multifiber connector integrated with the housing” as recited by independent
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

13
claim 18, respectively. Id. at 45. Appellant further contends that such a
modification would destroy the entire purpose of routing individual optical
fibers to discrete subscribers. Id. at 46.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that
Parikh teaches a multi-fiber connector that meets the corresponding
limitations of claims 1 and 18. Final Act. 13, 15–16; Parikh Figs. 8–12, 23,
24, ¶¶ 10, 72. While Appellant contends that the connectors within Parikh’s
enclosures are directed to a specific use with the complimentary cable
assemblies (Appeal Br. 45), Appellant does not explain adequately how this
distinguishes the claimed invention from Parikh’s multi-fiber connector.
Appellant does not explain why one skilled in the art, using no more than
ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of using the connectors in
Parikh’s fiber optic multiport with other cable assemblies and still
reasonably expect that Parikh’s fiber optic multiport will provide the desired
optical transmission. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under §
103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8–12,
18–23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection VI
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejection of these claims. Final Act. 19–23.
Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

14
With respect to claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, and 15, Appellant again focuses
on the reference to Ford that is similar to the one presented when discussing
the rejection of claim 14 based on Nhep. Appeal Br. 46–47. We direct our
attention to our previous discussion of this argument and again agree with
the Examiner’s determination that Ford and the claimed invention are
directed to the same field of endeavor of optical transmission. Ans. 7–8;
Ford ¶¶ 11, 83.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Because one or more of the affirmed rejections covers each of the
appealed claims, our decision is an affirmance.
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 12, 14–
15, 23, 25
103(a) Nhep, Ford 14, 15 1–4, 12,
23, 25
6, 7 103(a) Nhep, Ford, Olson 6, 7
8–11 103(a) Nhep, Ford, Davis 8–11
18–21 103(a) Nhep, Davis 18–20 21
1, 2, 8–12,
18–23, 25
103(a) Parikh 1, 2, 8–12,
18–23, 25

3, 4, 6, 7, 14,
15
103(a) Parikh, Ford 3, 4, 6, 7,
14, 15

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12,
14, 15, 18–
23, 25

Appeal 2020-004845
Application 13/760,669

15
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