Ex Parte Stratton et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 21, 2019

14238378 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/238,378 02/11/2014
22827 7590 02/25/2019
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig Stratton
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AFLACS-122-PCT-US 7000
EXAMINER
YAGER, JAMES C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2019 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):
USDOCKETING@DORITY-MANNING.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG STRATTON, BRIAN HERBST, JOE CIGNARALE,
BRETT VILLIGER, and MICHAEL TURENNE
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY R. SNAY, BRIAND. RANGE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-15, and 30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 11, 2014; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated August 4, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed January 2, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
March 16, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated May 14,
2018.
2 Appellant is Applicant, APL Telecommunications LLC, which is identified
in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an abrasion-resistant cable,
such as may be deployed in oil and gas well applications. Spec. ,r 1.
According to the Specification, cables housing optical fibers typically
include a plastic jacket surrounding a metal tube that contains the optical
fibers. Id. ,r 4. High pressure water can penetrate the plastic jacket, leading
to erosion of the metal tube. Id. ,r,r 4, 5. The Specification discloses a
reinforced cable which includes a strength member, such as an additional
metal tube, within the cross-section of the cable to serve as a protective
barrier against erosion. Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-
reads as follows:
1. A cable, comprising:
a core, the core comprising a metal tube and at least one
optical fiber disposed within the metal tube, wherein the metal
tube has a continuous solidly uniform cross-section and is an
innermost tube of the cable;
a first strength member surrounding said core, the first
strength member comprising a metal tube, the core disposed
within the metal tube, wherein a space is defined between the
metal tube of the first strength member and the metal tube of
the core; and
an outer layer surrounding said first strength member;
wherein said outer layer comprises a polycarbonate
material.
App. Br. Claims Appendix.
2
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1 and 3-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Anderson, 3 James, 4 and Siddhamalli. 5
II. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Anderson, James, Siddhamalli, and Hodge. 6
III. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over James, and Siddhamalli.
IV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over James, Siddhamalli, and Hodge.
OPINION
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant's arguments solely address
claim 1. App. Br. 3---6. Claims 3-15 stand or fall with claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Anderson discloses a composite cable which differs from claim 1 in that
Anderson's inner tube surrounding the optical fibers is formed of plastic
rather than metal. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Anderson Fig. 3). The Examiner
finds that James provides a reason to use an inner metal tube for surrounding
optical fibers in a composite data transmission cable because the metal tube
is capable of withstanding high pressure conditions. Id.
Appellant argues that Anderson's purpose is to facilitate access to the
optical fibers within the cable, and that providing a metal inner tube-
3 US 6,195,487 Bl, issued February 27, 2001.
4 US 2003/0169179 Al, published September 11, 2003.
5 US 2009/0239987 Al, published September 24, 2009.
6 US 5,082,338, issued January 21, 1992.
3
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
whether in place of or within Anderson's plastic inner tube-would frustrate
that purpose. App. Br. 4--5: Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree.
Anderson's disclosed composite cable includes a core, comprising
optical fibers loosely held within a tube, which is surrounded by, inter alia, a
plurality of insulated conductors. Anderson 4:1-16, 22-24. Anderson
explains that, "[a]lthough the insulated conductors 20 can be helically
wound or disposed longitudinal ... such helical winding or longitudinal
disposition of the conductors 20 makes it difficult to obtain access to the
optical fibers" because "there is no slack in the conductors 20 permitting
them to be separated." Id. 4:30-41 ( emphasis added). "Therefore,
preferably, the conductors 20 are wound around the layer 18 in S-Z
fashion," to provide slack in the conductors. Id. 4:48-53 ( emphasis added).
Appellant does not persuade us that ease of access to the optical fibers is
Anderson's essential purpose, rather than merely a preferred embodiment.
Moreover, even in Anderson's preferred embodiment involving conductors
wrapped to provide slack, accessing the interior optical fibers still requires
removing at least part of all the outer material layers-including a steel
armor layer-as well as cutting the inner tube. See id. 4:62---65, 5:55---60,
Fig. 1 C. Appellant does not persuasively explain why the addition of a
metal inner tube would frustrate access to Anderson's optical fibers,
particularly where Anderson already contemplates the need to remove a
metal armor layer and the plastic inner tube to access the optical fibers.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's justification for providing a
metal inner tube to withstand high pressure conditions ignores the
environment in which Anderson's cable is used. App. Br. 5. However,
Appellant does not explain why Anderson's disclosed data transmission
4
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
cable would not have found use in high pressure conditions, such as those
taught by James.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error. Rejection I is sustained.
Rejection II
Appellant does not argue Rejection II, except to state that depending
claims should be deemed allowable based on their dependence from claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection II for the reasons given in connection
with claim 1 above.
Rejection III
The Examiner also finds that James discloses a cable having all of the
claimed features, except that James does not specify that the outer layer
comprises polycarbonate. Final Act. 7 (citing James Fig. 1). We reproduce
James' Figure 1 below:
/0
I
{Figure 1 shows a downhole data transmission line with components
removed to show underlying layers and elements. James ,r 17.}
5
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
Particularly, with reference to Figure 1, the Examiner finds that James
depicts a cable which includes, in the following order, optical fibers 12, a
metal containment tube 14, a copper braided layer 16, and a large metal tube
22 coated with a protective plastic layer. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds
that both the braided layer 16 and large metal tube 22 correspond to the
claimed "strength member comprising a metal tube." Id.
Appellant argues that because the layer 16 in James is "wrapped or
tightly braided'' about the metal tube 14, there is no "space between a metal
tube of a first strength member and a metal tube of a core, as required by
independent claim 1." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner
finds that braiding of the material forming layer 16 necessarily and
intrinsically would have formed spaces between the interwoven strands,
such that space would have existed between the braided material and the
metal tube at the points where the strands overlap. Final Act. 7; Ans. 11.
Appellant does not dispute that braiding necessarily would have created
voids or spaces due to overlapping strands. Nor does Appellant persuasively
show that the term "space" as claimed should be narrowly construed in a
manner that excludes space formed by overlapping strands of a braid.
Moreover, Appellant does not address the Examiner's finding that the metal
layer 22 in James, which is separated from the metal tube 14 by multiple
other material layers, also meets the claimed strength layer. Appellant does
not contend, and we do not see, that the term "space" in claim 1 precludes
the existence of other material layers within that space.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error. Rejection III is sustained.
6
Appeal2018-005737
Application 14/238,378
Rejection IV
Appellant does not argue Rejection IV, except again to state that
depending claims should be deemed allowable based on their dependence
from claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain Rejection IV for the reasons given in
connection with claim 1 above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-15, and 30 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7