Gundel, Douglas B.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 16, 202013985074 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020) 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. 13/985,074 08/13/2013 Douglas B. Gundel 64239US005 8314 32692 7590 04/16/2020 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY PO BOX 33427 ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427 EXAMINER LOPEZ, RICARDO E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2020 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): LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DOUGLAS B. GUNDEL ____________ Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–10.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company as the real parties in interest. Appeal Brief filed November 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. 2 Final Office Action entered August 7, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 1. Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant claims a high speed transmission cable. Appeal Br. 2–3. Independent claims 1 and 4 illustrate the subject matter on appeal, and are reproduced below with contested subject matter italicized: 1. A high speed transmission cable comprising a first inner conductor and a longitudinal dielectric film extending along a length of the dielectric film and the cable and comprising a base layer including a plurality of first protrusions and second protrusions formed on a first major surface of the base layer and a plurality of third protrusions formed on a portion of an opposing second major surface of the base layer, wherein the first protrusions and the second protrusions are different and wherein in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other, and wherein at least a portion of the dielectric film is concentric with the inner conductor such that the first protrusions are disposed between the first inner conductor and the base layer, the first protrusions forming an insulating envelope around the first inner conductor, and wherein at least a portion of one of the first and second protrusions interlock with the third protrusions when the dielectric film is wrapped around the first conductor. 4. A high speed transmission cable comprising a first inner conductor and a longitudinal dielectric film extending along a length of the dielectric film and the cable and comprising a base layer including a plurality of first protrusions and second protrusions formed on a first major surface of the base layer, wherein the first protrusions and the second protrusions are different and wherein in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the dielectric Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 3 film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other, and wherein at least a portion of the dielectric film is concentric with the inner conductor such that the first protrusions are disposed between the first inner conductor and the base layer, the first protrusions forming an insulating envelope around the first inner conductor, wherein the base layer of the dielectric material includes a thinned portion, and wherein first protrusions are formed on either side of the thinned portion and the second protrusions are formed on the thinned portion so that bases of the second protrusions are lower than bases of the first protrusions. Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and spacing added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered March 7, 2019 (“Ans.”): I. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gill;3 and II. Claims 1–3 and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gill in view of McMahon4 and Schroeder.5 FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for reasons set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, and below. 3 GB 2 169 437 A, published July 9, 1986. 4 US 3,496,281, issued February 17, 1970. 5 US 5,283,948, issued February 8, 1994. Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 4 Independent claims 1 and 4 both require the recited high speed transmission cable to comprise, in part, a longitudinal dielectric film comprising a base layer that includes a plurality of first protrusions and second protrusions formed on a first major surface of the base layer, and in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other. Rejection I We first address the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gill. The Examiner finds that Gill discloses a coaxial cable comprising central conductor 1 (first inner conductor) coaxial with tubular outer conductor 2. Final Act. 2–3; see also Gill p. 1, ll. 79–80, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that Gill discloses that plastic spacers 3 made up of a plurality of segments 4 having pyramid shape (first protrusions) separate the two conductors, and radiate inward from dielectric plastic strip 5 (base layer), which is folded longitudinally around central conductor 1 such that segments 4 (first protrusions) extend inwards to contact central conductor 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Gill p. 1, ll. 55–60, 76–99); see also Gill p. 1, ll. 86–92, Figs. 1 and 2. The Examiner finds that Gill discloses that strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions) extend longitudinally from dielectric plastic strip 5 between respective segments 4. Final Act. 3 (citing Gill p. 1, ll. 100–101); see also Gill Figs. 1 and 2. The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Gill depicts an embodiment in which Gill’s segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions) have a “shape and location” that “meet the limitations” in claim Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 5 4 “requiring that in a cross section view of the dielectric film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of said film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other.” Final Act. 3. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Gill depicts “a cross section view” showing segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions) “extending longitudinally between respective segments 4, corresponding to Appellant’s second protrusions arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that “the cross sectional view of the embodiment depicted in FIG. 2” of Gill “shows that protrusions 4 and protrusions 8 are separated apart.” Final Act. 4. On the record before us, however, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that Gill discloses a longitudinal dielectric film comprising first and second protrusions arranged in a row, and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, as required by claim 4. Significantly, the Examiner does not address the requirement in claim 4 of first and second protrusions arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film. Rather, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Gill depicts “a cross section view” —rather than a transverse cross-section— showing segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions) “extending longitudinally between respective segments 4.” And the Examiner finds that “the cross sectional view of the embodiment depicted in FIG. 2” of Gill—rather than a transverse cross Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 6 sectional view— “shows that protrusions 4 and protrusions 8 are separated apart.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). As Appellant points out, any transverse cross section of the coaxial cable depicted in each of Figures 1 and 2 of Gill would include either segments 4 (first protrusions) or strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions), but would not include both segments 4 (first protrusions) and strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions) arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other. Appeal Br. 4; Reply B. 2–3 (illustrating cross-sectional views of the coaxial cable depicted in both Figures 1 and 2 of Gill). For example, as Appellant explains, the transverse cross-section of the coaxial cable shown in Figure 1 of Gill represented by the front face of the cable includes only strengthening ribs 8 (second protrusions), and does not include segments 4 (first protrusions). Id. When Gill’s segments 4 and strengthening ribs 8 are arranged in a row, they are not spaced apart from each other, as required by claim 4, but instead are co-located, as argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner does not cite to any portion of Gill other than Figures 1 and 2 for disclosure of first and second protrusions arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross-section of the dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, as required by claim 4. Consequently, because Gill’s Figures 1 and 2 do not depict first and second protrusions so arranged, the Examiner does not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish that Gill discloses this feature of the high speed transmission cable recited in claim 4. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gill. Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 7 Rejection II We turn now to the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1–3 and 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gill in view of McMahon and Schroeder. The Examiner again finds that “the cross sectional view of the embodiment depicted in FIG. 2 [of Gill] shows that protrusions 4 and protrusions 8 are separated apart” meeting the limitation in claim 1 “requiring that in a cross section view of the dielectric film perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of said film, the first and second protrusions are arranged in a row and spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction of the dielectric film, the first and second protrusions are spaced apart from each other.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner, however, does not identify any disclosure in Gill, McMahon, and Schroeder, considered individually and in combination, that teaches or would have suggested a high speed transmission cable comprising a longitudinal dielectric film comprising first and second protrusions arranged in a row, and spaced apart from each other in a transverse cross- section of the dielectric film perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the dielectric film, as required by claim 1. In other words, the Examiner does not rely on McMahon, and Schroeder for any disclosure that remedies the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on Gill, discussed more fully above in connection with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. We, accordingly, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 5–10, which each depend from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gill in view of McMahon and Schroeder. Appeal 2019-004082 Application 13/985,074 8 CONCLUSION Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4 102(b) Gill 4 1–3, 5–10 103(a) Gill, McMahon, Schroeder 1–3, 5–10 Overall Outcome 1–10 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation