Ex Parte Durrant et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 15, 201312218807 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2013) 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. 12/218,807 07/18/2008 Richard C.E. Durrant 806FO001.C1 5168 7590 08/16/2013 Karl D. Kovach Emerson Network Power Connectivity Solutions, Inc. Suite 308N 3000 Lakeside Drive Bannockburn, IL 60015 EXAMINER KIANNI, KAVEH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD C.E. DURRANT and MARK WALDRON ____________________ Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHN A. EVANS, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 Real Party in Interest is Stratos International, Inc. 2 Claims 2, 3, and 10 have been cancelled and are not on appeal. 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2010 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 18, 2010 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed July 18, 2008 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention According to Appellants, there are two categories of fiber optic connectors available in the market, including: (1) physical contact connectors, and (2) expanded beam connectors. See Appellants’ Spec., ¶[0005]. In practice, a fiber optic cable terminated with (1) physical contact connectors will only connect to other fiber optic cables which are also terminated with (1) physical contact connectors. Likewise, a fiber optic cable terminated with expanded beam connectors (2) will only connect to other fiber optic cables which are also terminated with expanded beam connectors (2). Id. As a result of such rigidity, Appellants’ invention seeks to introduce a fiber optic connector which enables a user to replace a single physical contact connector with a single expanded beam connector. Id., ¶[0003] and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A device comprising: a lens holder having an outside diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters; a lens mounted within the lens holder, and wherein the lens is a spherical ball lens, and wherein the lens has an outside diameter that is less than the outside diameter of the lens holder; a ferrule mountable within the lens holder, and wherein the ferrule has an outside diameter that is less than the outside diameter of the lens; and a gap between the ferrule and the lens. Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 3 Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sezerman US 4,753,510 Jun. 28, 1988 Examiner’s Rejection (1) Claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sezerman. Ans. 4-6. ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants, and the findings of the Examiner, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 4-9 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Sezerman. The issue turns on whether Sezerman discloses or suggests: (1) “a lens holder having an outside diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters [or 2.5 millimeters]” and (2) “a gap between the ferrule and the lens” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 10-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by Appellants. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 4 With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Appellants contend that Sezerman does not disclose or suggest: (1) “a lens holder having an outside diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters [or 2.5 millimeters]” and (2) “a gap between the ferrule and the lens” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 10-13. In particular, Appellants argue that: (1) [Modifying Sezerman’s lens holder with a desired diameter (1.25 mm for Appellants’ claim 1; 2.5 mm for Appellants’ claim 11) is not a matter of design choice because] Appellants’ claimed feature of the lens holder having an outside diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters provides for an expanded beam, non-physical contact connector having a spherical ball lens where the connector is mateable with receptacles that accommodate prior art, physical contact, fiber optic connectors that do not have expanded beam capabilities where the prior art fiber optic connectors conform to the LC standard. Thus, the benefits of a non-physical contact, expanded beam, fiber optic connector are made available to a user in the same receptacle in which would normally fit a physical contact, non-expanded beam, fiber optic connector (App. Br. 11) (emphasis added); (2) [D]isclosure of the Sezerman reference … only includes fiber optic connectors that have a non-spherical ball lens. Thus, if the noted paragraph is to be used as the justification to modify the foregoing embodiments in a manner as prescribed … then the only gaps which would be applied between components would be to fiber optic connectors which contain a non-spherical ball lens (App. Br. 12); and (3) Further review of the Sezerman reference discloses that a spherical ball lens is not disclosed until Figure 18 and the associated written description is provided at column 18, lines 27-44… Thus, Appellants believe that the Sezerman reference does not disclose a gap between the ferrule and the spherical ball lens (App. Br. 12-13) (emphasis added). Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 5 However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, we note that Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 11 are broad in scope and simply define a device comprising: (1) a lens holder having an outside diameter substantially equal to 1.25 millimeters (2.5 millimeters for claim 11); (2) a lens mounted within the lens holder; (3) a ferrule mountable within the lens holder; and (4) a gap between the ferrule and the lens. Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 11 do not define any expanded beam, single fiber, fiber optic connector with many specific features shown in FIGS. 7-10, including “where the connector is mateable with receptacles that accommodate prior art, physical contact, fiber optic connectors that do not have expanded beam capabilities where the prior art fiber optic connectors conform to the LC standard” as advanced by Appellants. As such, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Second, as correctly found by the Examiner, Sezerman discloses spherical lenses and graded index (GRIN) lenses, including a lens of 2.0 mm, held by a lens holder and suggests a variety of lenses can be used in the connectors. Ans. 6 (citing Sezerman, col. 11, ll. 21-30). In addition, Sezerman also discloses gaps formed around the curvature of the ball lens 546 and that of the ferrule/fiber holder 550. Ans. 7 (citing Sezerman, FIG. 18). Sezerman further suggests that: In practice it may be necessary to space the fibre end from the lens to ensure that the image passing through the lens is focused on the fibre end. Any such space or gap between the fibre end and the lens can be filled with an index matching fluid or resin having a low attenuation coefficient to minimize losses. Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 6 Ans. 8 (underlining omitted) (citing Sezerman, col. 15, ll. 9-20). In view of such teachings from Sezerman, we find the Examiner’s factual findings are supported by a preponderance of evidence, and, as such, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that: it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was made to modify Sezerman's lens- holder’s diameter in accordance with a desired diameter of the lens which is a function of numerical aperture (NA) of the fiber being used in order to produce a device that includes the above limitations; since such sizes are conventionally used, see prior art listed with ball lenses of 1 mm, 2mm or larger, and since such modification would output coupling light optimized with great adjustment and efficiently (see col. 1) and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Ans. 8. Separately, we note that the distinction drawn by Appellants between a spherical ball lens and a non-spherical ball lens is without merit. App. Br. 11-13. Any such space or gap between the ferrule and the lens is created regardless whether the lens is a spherical ball lens or a non-spherical ball lens. Appellants have not presented sufficient persuasive argument or evidence that modifying Sezerman’s lens holder with the claimed outside diameter was “was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nor have Appellants presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of Appeal 2011-001662 Application 12/218,807 7 reversible error in the Examiner’s findings. Absent sufficient evidence or persuasive arguments, we do not find error in the Examiner’s position and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 4-9 and 12-17, which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 11-17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation